Sitting of 11 March 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HERTS AND ESSEX WATER BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  ILFORD CORPORATION BILL (by Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    Recruits and Publicity
    Commander Donaldsonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many recruits were received into the Royal Navy during 1952; what is the present shortage of naval ratings in relation to the allowed total complement; and what forms of publicity are in hand to attract the best types of young men towards the Service.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): Approximately 10,300 Regular ratings and Royal Marines were recruited in 1952. This was about 1,500 fewer than the numbers aimed at. Publicity is mainly concentrated on Press advertisements, but use is made of films for display to schools and youth organisations, and of the touring exhibition called "Meet the Royal Navy."
    Commander Donaldson: Would my right hon. Friend consider giving more attention in his publicity to the definite benefits which may be obtained by those who join the Service, such as a petty officer who, after five years' service, will be receiving a wage of £500? I think that this might well attract people to the Service.
    Mr. Thomas: I shall be very glad to bear in mind the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend.

    Service Abroad
    Commander Donaldsonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the additional hardship experienced by sea-going personnel serving on foreign stations compared with land based married personnel on the same stations, and if some provision of married quarters ashore for sea-going ratings can be made.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Married quarters cannot be provided at present for naval personnel abroad serving afloat. There is a shortage of married quarters on all stations abroad, which we are reducing as quickly as financial considerations permit; but, until more quarters are available, their allocation is restricted to those serving ashore who can make better use of them because they can spend more time with their families than those serving afloat. Those serving afloat whose families join them on their overseas station under officially approved arrangements receive a rate of local overseas allowance which takes account of the level of rents paid for private accommodation on the station.
    Commander Donaldsonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that prolonged periods of service on foreign stations discourage long-term engagements by naval ratings; and if he will consider introducing a system comparable with the United States task Forces, whereby service on foreign stations could be limited to periods of 18 months to two years.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: There are a number of possible reasons that may contribute to a man's decision not to take up a long-term engagement. The problem is a complex one. The task force system is already under consideration in this connection.
    Commander Donaldson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the thought of a task force being introduced into the Royal Navy will give great satisfaction to many thousands of ratings serving with Her Majesty's Forces?

    "Victory at Sea" (Co-operation)
    Captain Ryderasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the circumstances in which the Admiralty agreed to co-operate in the making of the film, "Victory at Sea"; and what assurances he obtained that this film would present an accurate account of the war at sea.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that this programme was produced by an American company for United States audiences. In order to encourage the producers to include some aspects of the parts played by the Royal Navy, the Admiralty was only too willing to place its material unreservedly at the disposal of the company. The Admiralty naturally used all the influence it could to ensure that the operations of the Royal Navy were treated in reasonable perspective.
    Captain Ryder: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the showing of that film on television in this country has caused widespread resentment, as it appears to be a deliberate attempt to belittle our own efforts at sea?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. and gallant Friend must bear in mind that this film was produced by Americans for Americans, so perhaps there is nothing very surprising in the result. The policy the Admiralty adopted was, I think, the only possible one of showing the maximum good will towards this film. After all, the White Ensign was shown on 20 occasions. The decision to show the film on television was taken by the B.B.C.
    Captain Ryder: But will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when the Admiralty give their sanction for a film, it is tantamount to putting a hallmark of respectability on it, and that this is a bad film?
    Mr. Dugdale: Have the Admiralty made any protest to the American Government about this state of affairs?
    Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. We have not.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Are the Admiralty going to set the matter right by aiding in the production of a British version of "Victory at Sea"?
    Mr. Thomas: That is another question, and I am afraid I cannot, at the moment anyhow, give an answer to it.
    Captain Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend communicate with the B.B.C.?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, I will certainly do that.

    Night-Fighter Aircraft
    Captain Ryderasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the standard night-fighter aircraft now in squadron service; and what steps are being taken to replace this with a more modern type.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The naval night fighter at present in squadron service is the Sea Hornet Mark 21. It is to be replaced by the Sea Venom, the first squadron of which is planned to be formed towards the end of the present year.
    Captain Ryder: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this aircraft is in fact a good fighter?
    Mr. Thomas: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would await a fairly comprehensive statement that I propose to make on Naval Aviation during the debate on the Navy Estimates next week.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation whereby large numbers of Naval Aviation aircraft are partly out-dated before they have got into service will not be righted until the system by which those aircraft are produced from the drawing board is corrected?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend will have to wait to hear what I have to say about the system on the Navy Estimates next week.

    Special Interview Boards (Qualifications)
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to particularise in detail the qualifications required of those who form the special Admiralty interview boards which enable them to assess whether candidates are likely to make satisfactory naval officers.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: In the first place, the members of these boards must have an intimate knowledge of those personal characteristics which are essential in any

    1261
    naval officer, in whatever branch OE specialisation he may be required to serve. Secondly, there must be on the board a member, or members, who have a more detailed knowledge of the work of the special branch in which the men are candidates for commissions. These members must be capable of recognising potential ability as well as any skills or positive characteristics which the candidates may have at the time of interview. This last qualification is directly related to the ability to recognise in the candidates those who are capable of absorbing instruction and benefiting from it to the full. For this reason instructor officers with academic, as well as naval, qualifications also serve on the boards.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two youths from my constituency who got 82 per cent. and 70 per cent. marks in their written examination were brought before a board for interview for a few minutes and were turned down; and is he also aware that when I asked for one of these youths to be transferred to the Air Force I received a reply from the Admiralty that this youth was making good progress, and they could not agree to his being transferred to the Air Force?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman talks of two cases. I know of one case of a constituent of his who has a knowledge of Russian, and who, as a coder, is carrying on, I understand, with his studies. I would point out that, however good the marks in written examinations may be—and I am sure that both the men the hon. Gentleman mentioned are thoroughly good chaps—they do not necessarily mean that the men would have the necessary qualities which the interviewing board would want them to have to pass them at that stage.
    Dr. King: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the social origin of candidates has nothing to do with their selection; and would he not agree that to put this matter beyond all doubt, the selection board itself ought to be drawn from all sections of the community?
    Mr. Thomas: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the social background of the candidates concerned has nothing whatever to do with it, as I think the latest figures in another sphere—at Dartmouth—definitely show. The board have
    1262
    to consider academic as well as naval qualifications. I really do not know the social background of these men. For all I know, it may be a very wide one.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is it not putting the cart somewhat before the horse to have oral examinations after all the effort of written examinations? Why not interview candidates first and then let them do their written examinations?
    Mr. Thomas: I think that is an entirely different question from the one on the Order Paper.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: If what my hon. Friend says is correct, and these boys were at the interview for only two minutes, may I ask how can any board interview and assess people in two minutes? Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into that aspect? I cannot accept that anybody can assess the character or the potentialities of boys in two minutes.
    Mr. Thomas: I should be grateful to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) if he would check that information. I find it very hard to believe that a strong, numerous board like this would give only a two minutes' interview to a candidate.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a letter he made a statement to the effect that this youth was making good progress, whereas on the other hand he says the youth is not suitable material?
    Mr. Thomas: What I said was that he is making good progress as a coder: not as an officer, but as coder.

    Service Ashore and Afloat
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the percentage of officers and ratings serving ashore and afloat. respectively.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Sixty-three per cent. of officers are serving ashore and 37 per cent. afloat: the corresponding figures for ratings and Royal Marines are 52 per cent. and 48 per cent. respectively. In aggregate, the proportion ashore is 53 per cent., which includes some 10 per cent. engaged on naval aviation duties ashore and about 20 per cent. under training or employed in training establishments ashore.

    Helicopters
    Mr. Baldockasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) how many helicopters are being flown by the Naval air service; and what progress is being made in developing machines suitable for sea warfare;
    (2) what steps are being taken to construct helicopters, of a type suitable for sea warfare, in Great Britain.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: A total of about 30 helicopters are in use at present. All carriers operating aircraft have one each for the rescue of aircrew at sea and some naval air stations have been provided with them. It is the intention to provide all carriers with two each and to increase the number at air stations as soon as possible. There is also a unit established ashore for helicopter training and trials and, as the House was informed on 17th November last by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, a squadron of larger helicopters is operating in Malaya manned by the Navy.
    A Naval Staff requirement has been stated for the development of a helicopter suitable for employment afloat in an antisubmarine role. This is now being examined by the Ministry of Supply. Investigations are in hand to determine the possibility of adapting existing helicopter designs for anti-submarine duties.
    Mr. Baldock: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this type of aircraft, which is particularly suitable for carrying on operations against enemy types of attack both below and above the surface. should offer an opportunity for our own naval designers to produce a type of aircraft which is at least pre-eminent among all the navies of the N.A.T.O. countries?
    Mr. Thomas: I agree with a good deal of what my hon. Friend says. His question really should be addressed to the Minister of Supply, who deals with that aspect.
    Air Commodore Harvey: If my right hon. Friend can give this very detailed information, why could he not tell me the other day how many different types of aircraft are in production for the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Thomas: I am afraid I am unable to answer that question without notice. I have forgotten my original answer.

  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY (PUBLIC ADMISSION)
  Sir Edward Keelingasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will now say whether the old part of Greenwich Observatory, in which astronomical observations have been made for nearly 300 years, will be handed over to the National Maritime Museum in time for visitors to the Coronation to see its historic instruments.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I am glad to be able to say that satisfactory arrangements have been concluded between the National Maritime Museum and the Royal Greenwich Observatory which will enable part of the Wren building to be open to the public during Coronation year, and a suitable display of exhibits is being arranged. This will include admittance of the public to the room containing the Airey Transit Circle when this instrument is not in use for astronomical observations.
  Sir E. Keeling: I am much obliged.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will it be open on a Sunday?
  Mr. Thomas: I think I am right in saying that it will be open on a Sunday.

  SHIPBUILDING (STEEL ALLOCATION)
  Mr. Frederick Willeyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will now make a further statement about the allocation of steel to the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 11th February in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will be disappointing to the industry, as they expect more than this; that the apprehension I have expressed in the past is now shared by the industry generally, that there are still complaints about the out-of-sequence supplies, and that the industry really must be put into a position in which it can compete effectively?
  Mr. Thomas: All I can say is, as I said in February, that the allocation for the second quarter of the year was 6 per cent. higher than the previous allocation, and the steel for ship repairs will, of course, be a first charge on it.
  Mrs. Braddock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ship repairing industry as a whole is very anxious for something to be done following the recommendations of the Government working party with reference to ship-repairing; and can he give us any further information about what is to be done in regard to those recommendations?
  Mr. Thomas: That is a different question. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would put it down, and I should be very glad to answer it.
  Miss Ward: Can my right hon. Friend deal with the point about the allegations regarding lack of sequence of supplies? This is very important to shipbuilding and ship-repairing, and an answer which we could all see would be welcome.
  Mr. Thomas: That question is one for the Ministry of Supply. I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says about sequence and will bring it to the notice of the Minister of Supply.
  Miss Ward: If it was possible yesterday to transfer to the Prime Minister a Question which had been addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, cannot my right hon. Friend transfer the question which I am asking him?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that is not possible.
  Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to steel being in short supply, last year's output from our shipbuilding yards was very much less than it ought to have been? Will he also remember that the full employment policy in the shipbuilding areas is decided by the amount of steel that he allocates to the industry?
  Mr. Thomas: I assure the hon. Member that we are well aware of those two points. That is why we are very anxious to help in this direction as soon as possible. I repeat that the steel for ship repairs is a first charge on the supplies coming in.

  TELEVISION

    Sponsored Programmes
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Assistant Postmaster-General from what newspapers he has received applications for a sponsored television licence.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): It is for the prospective licensees to disclose their applications, should they wish to do so.
    Mr. Fletcher: Since it is well known that certain newspapers are prospective licensees, will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no discrimination among applications on political grounds?
    Mr. Gammans: The question of the selection of prospective licensees has not been considered. I can certainly give that assurance.
    Mr. Mayhew: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by that that if an application is made by the "Daily Worker," it will be considered equally with an application from the "Daily Telegraph"?
    Mr. Osborne: If they pay for it.
    Mr. Gammans: All applications will be considered equally.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Did not the Home Secretary in the June debate make it clear that it was the controlling body's job to make recommendations to the Postmaster-General as to the bodies to whom licences should be granted?
    Mr. Gammans: That is so.
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for permission to provide sponsored television programmes are under consideration; and what opportunities objectors will have of making representations to his Department before any licences are granted.
    Mr. Gammans: Forty-six inquiries have been received about licences and 26 about time for sponsored programmes. I have nothing to add to the statement in the White Paper on broadcasting that Parliament will have an opportunity of considering, before the first station is licensed, the terms and conditions under which competitive television will operate.
    Mr. Fletcher: Does that mean that Parliament will also have an opportunity of knowing which application is being considered and on what grounds?
    Mr. Gammans: Parliament will certainly have an opportunity of knowing to whom licences are given.
    Mr. Manuel: What about the objections?
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what proposals have been made to him that the British Broadcasting Corporation should sell the dead hours of its television transmitters to commercial concerns.
    Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. Licence provides that the Corporation shall not engage in commercial broadcasting except with the consent of the Postmaster-General. That consent has not been sought. Any proposal that the B.B.C. should sell television transmitter time to commercial concerns would be a matter for the Governors of the Corporation in the first instance.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Can I take it, then, that the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in his speech on 13th February, was flying a kite for commercial interests rather than for the Government?
    Mr. Osborne: Before this dead time is sold, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that unlimited hours of T.V. would be an unmixed blessing for families with small children?
    Hon. Members: A mixed blessing.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that when I made my statement on 13th February I was merely reiterating what had already been put before this House from the Government Front Bench during the June debate, and also proclaimed in the White Paper, namely, that we were resolved to see that the B.B.C. public service remains free from advertisements?.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what consultations he has had with organisations representing teachers and parents about the impact on children of commercially-sponsored television programmes.
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he is
    1268
    taking to ensure that commercially-sponsored television programmes in this country will not contain a disproportionate emphasis on violence and crimes, as occurs in commercially-sponsored television programmes in other countries.
    Mr. Gammans: Government policy remains as set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the White Paper on Broadcasting (Cmd. 8550). Matters such as those mentioned by the hon. Members will be due for consideration at the time the controlling body is set up.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the hon. Gentleman warning commercial interests who may be contemplating sinking capital in television that if, as seems likely, television is harmful to children, they can expect no mercy from any future Labour Government?
    Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman is giving himself shudders unnecessarily over a bogy of his own designing. When he sees the safeguards that the Government propose, he may find himself satisfied.
    Sir R. Grimston: When is the controlling body envisaged in paragraph 9 of the White Paper to be set up?
    Mr. Gammans: I cannot make a statement on that subject at the moment.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Would it not be much better, in order to allay the widespread suspicion that exists, to set up the controlling body as soon as possible so that they can indicate the conditions under which commercial television will be considered?
    Mr. Gammans: I am not in a position to make any statement at the moment about when the controlling body will be set up.
    Mr. G. Longden: May I ask my hon. Friend three questions? Firstly, is it suggested that the proposed Press Council should be advised by parents and teachers? Secondly, is my hon. Friend aware that nobody has any idea what commercial television in this country will produce? Thirdly, is he aware that the objections to commercial television are nothing more or less than a laboriously sponsored ramp?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman advise his noble Friend not

    1269
    to take any steps to expedite the introduction of commercial television until the undertaking of the B.B.C. has been carried out that five low-powered stations will be built?
    Mr. Gammans: That is outside the Question on the Order Paper.

    Interference
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General to what extent his regulations permit him to take action against owners of television sets which cause interference with other television sets.
    Mr. Gammans: The television licence is issued on condition that the apparatus shall not cause interference with other sets; and it can be cancelled if this condition is not observed.
    Mr. Williams: In that case will the Assistant Postmaster-General take action against certain sets of which I am sure he is well aware, and which cause interference unless a mechanical device is fixed to them? If he knows of the cases, will he take action so that those interfered with can enjoy their television properly?
    Mr. Gammans: If my hon. Friend cares to give me actual cases, we will have them investigated.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the ordinary wireless set protected in the same way, because recently I brought a case to the notice of my hon. Friend and I found him a particularly unsatisfactory correspondent.
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, of course they are.

    Sporting Events
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what progress has been made in resolving the difference between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the sport authorities with regard to the televising of sporting events.
    Mr. Gammans: I am informed that the B.B.C. and the Association for the Protection of Copyright in Sport have not yet reached conclusions on the problems to be solved, but their discussions are continuing.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of the fact that these discussions have been going on for a long time and that the public are still being denied views of very large sporting events, is not this one of the places where the Postmaster-General might apply a little pressure?
    Mr. Gammans: Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the intricacies of this problem, but, as he is probably aware, the Cup Final is to be televised in full this year, and that is an Improvement on the past two years.
    Mr. Fell: Is it not obvious that the public will be denied the televising of sporting events until such time as we get commercial television?

  POST OFFICE

    Timber
    Mr. Spenceasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the approximate annual value and quantity of timber used by his Department; and how much of this is imported.
    Mr. Gammans: Timber used by the Post Office consists mainly of telegraph poles, of which about 130,000, of a value of about £290,000, are used in a year. The Post Office has taken all homegrown supplies offered in recent years, amounting to between 5,000 and 10,000 poles a year. The rest of the supplies has been imported.
    Mr. Spence: In the present circumstances, will the Minister consider widening the specification for the type of pole to be used? Is my hon. Friend aware that we have an immense amount of home-grown timber which must find a market during the coming year? Will he see what he can do along these lines?
    Mr. Gammans: If my hon. Friend is thinking, as I imagine he is, of the timber recently blown down in Scotland, I assure him that the Post Office have already been in touch with the Forestry Commission and we are prepared to take all that we can use.
    Mr. Hobson: Is the Minister aware that the specification for home-grown timber is already much lower than that for imported timber?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes. I think that my hon. Friend was, in fact, seeking an assurance that the Post Office would not let go the opportunity of trying to use some of the timber which was, unfortunately, recently blown down in Scotland.

    Union Recognition (Discussions)
    Mr. Wadeasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he has now concluded his consideration of claims for recognition by Post Office unions; what decisions have been reached; and what principles will be applied in considering any future claims which may arise.
    Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. The discussions between the unions concerned, begun as a result of my noble Friend's statement of 25th June last, are not yet all completed.
    Mr. Wade: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when a decision will be made, having regard to the fact that approximately nine months have elapsed since the statement that the decision would be deferred for six months? Does the Minister not consider that in future it would be advantageous if there were certain guiding principles, such as those contained in the Listowel formula, which would assist the Minister in deciding these claims for recognition?
    Mr. Gammans: I remind the hon. Member that this is primarily a difference of opinion between the unions. My noble Friend does not wish to intervene unless it is absolutely necessary that he should do so. Therefore, I cannot hold out any hope that an immediate decision will be given.
    Sir R. Grimston: Would it not be in accordance with the attitude taken on this side of the House when we were in opposition that the outstanding claims should be recognised under the old procedure and that the board would then be clean for any future method to be considered?
    Mr. Gammans: I know very well the feeling of my hon. Friend in this matter, but I hope that it will be possible to settle the matter amicably between the unions concerned.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Would not the Minister agree that it would be quite wrong for anybody, on either side of the House, to bedevil the negotiations that are now taking place?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes. I hope that the House will not press me any further on this. I hope that this matter, which is primarily a trade union matter, will be settled by the unions themselves.

    Letter Deliveries, Knutsford
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Assistant Postmaster-General why letters posted in London take three days to reach Knutsford in the Knutsford Division.
    Mr. Gammans: If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have details of any letter which has been so delayed, I will gladly look into the matter. Letters and postcards—but not correspondence at the printed paper rate—posted in London in time for the 6–7.30 p.m. collections, should be delivered in Knutsford by the first delivery next week-day, and such letters and postcards posted in time for the 8.15–9 p.m. collections should be delivered by the second delivery.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have been writing to his Department since 1945 and that all I have got have been stone-walling letters in reply and that the service, instead of getting better, is getting worse? Can I repeat the special request on behalf of the Knutsford division which I made some eight or nine summers ago—would my hon. Friend consider reducing the charge, as this service is so bad?
    Mr. Gammans: If my hon. Friend will only give me specific cases, I will have them investigated.
    Mr. Nahum: While not wishing to prod my hon. Friend, will he tell the House why the county of Cheshire, in which my hon. and gallant Friend's constituency is situated, seems to be singled out for such very poor postal services? Is he aware that constantly my mail between Chester and London has been held up for two or three days? Why should that be when there is a main-line railway service?
    Mr. Gammans: I would ask hon. Members on both sides of the House not to

    1273
    make these wild allegations. If they will let me have specific instances of late deliveries of letters, I promise them that they will be thoroughly investigated. I would point out that it is only by investigation of complaints of that sort that the Post Office can do its job.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the Minister urge on his hon. Friend the necessity to give specific instances of what he has in mind, because unless he has got some concrete evidence that his correspondence has been delayed, ought he not to apologise to this House and to the workers in the Post Office?

    Registered Letters (Compensation)
    Miss Wardasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for reimbursement of losses in connection with registered letters have been received since November, 1951, to date; in how many cases compensation was refused; and in how many cases the decisions were reversed on a second application.
    Mr. Gammans: I am sorry that information, in the form desired by my hon. Friend, is not available. In the financial year 1951–52 the Post Office paid 7,820 claims for loss and damage to inland registered letters, but the number of claims which were rejected altogether, or allowed only after appeal against a first refusal, is not recorded centrally.
    Miss Ward: In view of the incident which I reported to my hon. Friend, and on which he very kindly took action, does he not think that the information ought to be available? His answer fills me with suspicion.
    Mr. Gammans: It would be a waste of time if we were to keep all statistics centrally. This happens to be one of the statistics which are not kept in London.
    Miss Ward: I am still suspicious.

    New Stamps
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will now say if the new books, containing stamps of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, will be available prior to the Coronation.
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir; 21½d. and 1½d. stamps of the new reign will be included in books of stamps issued in May.
    Mr. Freeman: How many of these books are being printed?
    Mr. Gammans: I could not say, without notice.

    U.N. Soldiers, Korea (Chinese Propaganda)
    Sir E. Keelingasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the result of the inquiries into the possibility of confiscating the propaganda sent by post from China to this country addressed to the next-of-kin of British prisoners of war in Communist hands, accusing the soldiers of the United Nations of the murder, torture and rape of defenceless civilians.
    Mr. Gammans: Detestable as this exploitation of human misery is, I am advised that these postal packets do not contravene Post Office Regulations, and I have, therefore, no power to interfere with their passage through the post.
    Sir E. Keeling: Is my hon. Friend aware that the delivery by the Post Office of this Communist propaganda offends, disgusts and distresses the recipients, who are, in most cases, parents of soldiers captured when doing their duty?
    Mr. Gammans: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said, and I wish there were some means whereby they would not distress the people who now receive them.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: This is a very important question. Will the hon. Gentleman look at it again and consider it with the Foreign Office, and see whether the matter can be raised with the Universal Postal Union? There must be some machinery for dealing with this matter.
    Mr. Gammans: The question has already been raised with the Foreign Office, but so far as the Post Office is concerned I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have considered this matter very carefully. We have no power whatever to do what my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: May I press the hon. Gentleman? Have the Government considered with the Universal Postal Union what can be done? The Universal Postal Union is one of the most efficient of all international organisations, and this problem surely can be taken up with it.
    Mr. Gammans: I will certainly have another look at the point raised, but the difficulty is that the Post Office have no idea what is in a letter unless we open it, and we have no power to open letters of that sort.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is it not a fact that the Post Office have power to open any letter? Is it not a reasonable presumption that any correspondence from that source is likely to contain some propaganda?
    Mr. Gammans: No, I do not think that is a fair presumption at all. It would mean opening all letters that came from any part of China.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the House has always been strongly opposed to the Post Office being made an instrument of censorship for any purpose whatever, and will he hold to his original reply that censorship is no purpose of the Post Office? Is he aware that many of us do not want to have Littlewood's coupons sent to us, but would not put forward the argument that the Post Office has to do anything about it on our behalf.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    New Exchange, Inverurie
    Mr. Spenceasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when additional telephone exchange facilities will be ready for use at Inverurie, Aberdeenshire.
    Mr. Gammans: A new automatic exchange should be ready by the autumn of this year.

    Shrewsbury
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones in the Shrewsbury area remain outstanding to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Gammans: Four hundred and twenty-nine applications were outstanding at 21st February, 1953.

    Kiosks, Victoria Station (Repainting)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the majority of the telephone kiosks
    1276
    on the western part of Victoria Station, S.W.1, were unavailable to the public on 28th February because they had just been repainted; and if he will arrange that, in future a better system of planning should be applied to the repainting of telephone kiosks.
    Mr. Gammans: In one suite of 17 kiosks on Victoria Station, nine kiosks were out of service on 28th February; but there were 51 kiosks available elsewhere on the station, and up till 10.30 p.m. there was an attendant at hand to direct would-be callers. I am sorry, however, if any inconvenience was caused, and I have given instructions for normal arrangements for repainting kiosks in smaller batches to be adhered to in future.
    Sir H. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in addition to the batch of 19. there were another six which had fallen out of action? My Question referred to the western part of the station, because I discovered that the eastern part had not been painted.

    Directory, Plymouth (New Issue)
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General why the distribution of the Plymouth telephone directory, published in August, 1952, has been restricted; how many Cornish subscribers have not received a copy of this directory; and whether Cornish advertisers in this directory have been offered compensation in respect of the diminished circulation of this publication.
    Mr. Gammans: The new issue of the Plymouth area telephone directory, which was sent automatically to business subscribers and new residential subscribers, was not sent to old residential subscribers, although, of course, they may have a copy if they ask for it. This is in line with recent practice in London and elsewhere, and I am pleased to say that public co-operation has resulted in considerable economy and saving of paper. Some 6,000 residential subscribers in Cornwall were affected. As regards compensation to advertisers, I would point out that their contracts do not stipulate the range of circulation of the directory.
    Mr. Wilson: Surely it cannot be satisfactory to collect money from advertisers who suppose that directories will

    1277
    be distributed in the ordinary way when, in fact, they are not. Is not my hon. Friend aware that this has caused a good deal of ill feeling in Cornwall, and that the "Western Morning News" has already described this incident as a new phase in the cold war waged by the Post Office against the people of Cornwall?
    Mr. Gammans: I am quite aware from what my hon. Friend has said on other occasions that I am not at the moment exactly a popular figure in Cornwall. I remind him, however, that in London alone this method last year saved us a quarter of a million pounds, and at a time when we are trying to hold down charges to the public we ought not to neglect an economy of this sort. Any private subscriber who wants a directory can get one by asking for it.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister make that clear by advertisement, because there are Members of this House who are subscribers in Cornwall who have not got a new directory? Will he also bear in mind that Cornishmen are tired of the Government's mean and petty economies and hope that he will try to induce the Government to be more generous in future?
    Mr. Gammans: I think that the people of Cornwall would be even more tired of the Government if they put up the charges and did not try first to make economies. It is in that spirit that I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept this.
    Mr. Hastings: Does the Minister's statement mean that we ordinary subscribers will get a new directory only if we ask for it? If so, how are we to know when new directories are available?
    Mr. Gammans: Business subscribers and new subscribers get a new directory automatically; private subscribers get one if they ask for it. This system has been in operation for the last year, we have had very great co-operation from the public and, as a result, this saving in money.
    Mr. Hastings: How are we to know when the directories are available?

    Cippenham
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will
    1278
    take steps to expedite the provision of a telephone service to the Cippenham area of Slough.
    Mr. Gammans: New plant is needed to meet most of the outstanding applications in Cippenham. While this will be provided as soon as possible, the district is mainly residential, and since our resources are limited in total, we have to give preference at present to the needs of industrial and business areas.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind certain special considerations? Is he aware that, because of drainage difficulties, this is the only area in Slough where we can build, that there are 141 on the local waiting list, and that the people have been informed that they may have to wait for four years? In view of all these facts, could the hon. Gentleman give special consideration to the position?
    Mr. Gammans: I was not aware that Cippenham was in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but I may be wrong there. I can say nothing more than I have said. I should like to meet these applications, but it is quite clear that commercial and industrial districts must have a preference.

    Statistics
    Miss Wardasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications have been received for telephones for each region since January, 1952; how many have been supplied; and what percentage of the population awaiting telephones in each region this represents.
    Mr. Gammans: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Miss Ward: Do those figures reflect that the North-East Coast has had a fair share of the new telephones?
    Mr. Gammans: I think that the hon. Lady had better read the figures first and then perhaps she can express an opinion on them.
    Miss Ward: But ought not my hon. Friend to know the answer?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that what is a fair share is probably a matter of opinion.
    Following is the reply:

    Region

    Applications received in 1952

    Telephones supplied in 1952

    Percentage telephones supplied in 1952 based on applications outstanding at 31st December 1951 plus applications received in 1952

    London

    …

    109,505

    99,823

    40

    Home Counties

    …

    50,532

    45,849

    43

    Midland

    …

    32,906

    30,043

    30

    North Eastern

    …

    38,115

    33,789

    40

    North Western

    …

    37,759

    32,332

    32

    Northern Ireland

    …

    5,024

    4,677

    29

    Scotland

    …

    28,679

    28,010

    39

    South Western

    …

    27,871

    26,703

    42

    Wales and Border Counties

    …

    13,993

    12,269

    30

    Miss Wardasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how much capital expenditure has been allocated to each region for the supply of telephones in 1951 and 1952; and what percentage of the population in each region this represents.
    Mr. Gammans: As the answer includes a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Miss Ward: May I ask my hon. Friend again whether on this occasion he happens to know whether the North-East Coast has had a fair share of the new telephones?

    Region

    Capital expenditure in 1951–52 and 1952–53

    Percentage of total capital expenditure

    Distribution of total population

    Distribution of subscribers and waiting applicants applicants

    (£'000s)

    per cent.

    per cent.

    per cent.

    London

    18,263

    25·4

    18·5

    30·7

    Home Counties

    10,893

    15·3

    12·3

    13·9

    Midland

    7,677

    10·7

    13·3

    10·5

    North Eastern

    7,918

    11·0

    15·2

    10·0

    North Western

    7,846

    10·9

    13·3

    11·6

    Northern Ireland

    1,370

    1·9

    2·7

    1·5

    Scotland

    6,743

    9·4

    10·2

    9·2

    South Western

    6,926

    9·6

    8·2

    8·5

    Wales and Border Counties

    4,173

    5·8

    6·3

    4·1

    Total

    £71,809

    100·0

    100·0

    100·0

    The demand for telephone service is not directly related to the population but varies in different regions. To illustrate this, figures are also given in the foregoing table showing the distribution of subscribers and waiting applicants.
    Mr. Gammans: My hon. Friend has asked for a very complicated set of figures, and I am sure that I should be detaining the House unnecessarily if I read it out, but that would be the only way to give a satisfactory answer to her Question.
    Mr. Hobson: Is not this a case where capital expenditure was limited because of the ban that Her Majesty's Government put on the building of new telephone exchanges?
    Mr. Gammans: I am afraid that that is true of the country as a whole.
    Following are the figures:
    The capital expenditure figures represent expenditure for two years on local and junction cables, exchange equipment, buildings and on connecting up subscribers and telephone kiosks. They exclude expenditure on trunk service since this represents national rather than regional development of the system.

    Bangham Pit Estate, Birmingham (Facilities)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what facilities, in the absence of a public telephone kiosk, exist for emergency calls to police, doctors, etc., from the Bangham Pit Estate, Birmingham, 31.
    Mr. Gammans: As regards telephone facilities, I regret that I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 4th March.
    Mr. Chapman: Did that reply mean—and there was nothing to indicate it—that in the whole area, which is very isolated, there is no public telephone service of any kind by which people can call doctors and police? If so, cannot the hon. Gentleman arrange for some telephones to be made publicly available, with a notice that people can telephone from those addresses?
    Mr. Gammans: As I told the hon. Gentleman, I hope that we can get telephones there before very long, but the position is not quite as bad as he suggests, because there are three kiosks only half a mile away.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Overseas Tour (Length)
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the approximate average length of the tour of duty overseas for officers and other ranks, respectively, in the Royal Air Force, serving on a Regular engagement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The length of an overseas tour varies from country to country, but it is normally two and a half years for Royal Air Force officers and airmen and two years for Women's Royal Air Force officers and airwomen.
    Sir L. Ropner: Is the tour of duty tending to grow shorter or longer?
    Mr. Ward: There is no variation, except in different climates.

    Coach Facilities, Bridgnorth
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of, and in-
    1282
    convenience to, all ranks of the Royal Air Force stationed at Bridgnorth, Salop, arising from the decision of the West Midlands Licensing Authority to discontinue permits for J. T. Whittle and Sons Limited, of Kidderminster, to operate their motor coaches for conveyance of private parties of Royal Air Force personnel, proceeding on furlough and for other recreational purposes from and to the Royal Air Force station at Bridgnorth; and in view of the fact that the Royal Air Force personnel at this station cannot take full advantage of leave facilities in the absence of such coach facilities, and are denied freedom of choice in travelling arrangements and the most economic means of transport, whether he will make representations to the licensing authority for resumption of such motor coach services under licence or permit of the licensing authority.
    Mr. Ward: As an appeal against the decision of the licensing authority has been lodged, this matter is sub judice.
    Mr. Nabarro: This is preposterous. What are we, on this side of the House, doing——
    Mr. Speaker: We have been told that the matter is sub judice, and, therefore, it cannot be discussed here.

    Operational Unit Movements (Air Transport)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the policy of the Air Ministry regarding unit moves to overseas stations by air transport.
    Mr. Ward: The need for Royal Air Force Squadrons to be moved as operational units from one theatre to another does not often arise in peace-time. When it does, the aircrew normally fly their own aircraft, while the ground staff and essential equipment are carried in transport aircraft.
    Mr. Bellenger: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a considerable number of personnel are being flown by aircraft and not transported by ship to distant stations?
    Mr. Ward: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has a written Question down on that point, and he will be getting an answer in due course.

  EAST COAST STORM (METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE RECORDING)
  Mr. Stokesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air in what terms the Meteorological Office recorded the storm which took place on the night of 31st January-1st February; and whether the wave that swept down the East Coast was described as tidal.
  Mr. Ward: The storm was recorded by the Meteorological Office as a severe north-west to north gale. Winds of 78 miles an hour were registered in Shetland, and 59 miles an hour was reached or exceeded over a wide area extending from Scotland to the Dutch coast. Gusts of over 100 miles an hour were recorded in Scotland.
  As regards the second part of the Question, the Meteorological Office does not record the behaviour of the sea.
  Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Minister if his reply means that the storm which took place on that occasion was a gale?
  Mr. Ward: I have said exactly what was announced, and that was, "a severe north-west to north gale."
  Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the importance of arriving at a decision on this matter, because until it is decided whether it was a gale or not, the Government cannot decide what they are going to do about compensation?
  Mr. Ward: I am afraid that I cannot decide that now.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Flying Unit Aircraft
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Civil Aviation how many and what type of aircraft are employed in his Department's communications flight.
    The Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): The Ministry of Civil Aviation Flying Unit is not a communications flight. It is almost entirely employed on the flight check of navigational aids and the flight testing of candidates for commercial pilots' licences and instrument rating certification.
    1284
    The Unit has 17 aircraft, made up as follows:

    Four Avro 19's.

    One Chipmunk.

    Five Consuls.

    Three Doves.

    One Gemini.

    Three Princes.

    This number will shortly be reduced to 14.

    British Airworthiness Certificate (U.S. Recognition)
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Civil Aviation to make a statement on the recent negotiations beween Mr. Hardingham of the Air Registration Board and United State officials concerning the recognition of British certificates of airworthiness in the United States of America.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Air Commodore Harvey: As the answer is an important one to this House, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in the meantime, while negotiations are taking place, he will on no account agree to the Americans sending over teams of technicians to progress this work through the British factories, thus gaining all the "know-how" and knowledge?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree that this is a most important question, and it is our hope and belief that when this aeroplane—the Comet III—is flown and has qualified for a British certificate, the way will have been cleared for the issue of an American certificate, at or about the same time. In regard to the other point to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, while the exchange of information as to the working of an aircraft is, of course, inevitable and desirable, technical matters on the production side can, we feel, be safely left to the ordinary, prudent, commercial friendly rivalry between various manufacturers.
    Mr. Beswick: Do we gather that the principle is now going to be accepted by the Americans that if we in this country say that an aircraft is airworthy, they will accept our word for it, as was the original agreement?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the United States have taken up to now the line that they are willing to deal with turbine—engined aircraft only on an ad hoc basis. The reply to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT is, I think, a satisfactory answer, but I shall be quite ready to answer further questions on this matter on a future occasion.
    Air Commodore Harvey: As the matter is being negotiated by the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will not be too weak, and will not allow the Americans to come over here and gain the "know-how" and knowledge of this industry.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the proper interests of British aviation, of which we are very conscious, will be properly and fully safeguarded.
    Following is the answer:
    As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend on 12th November last, the United States authorities are willing at present to deal with turbine-engined aircraft only on an ad hoc basis. This is because they have not yet been able to establish their own domestic airworthiness requirements for turbine-engined civil aircraft. The discussions between officers of the Air Registration Board and of the Civil Aeronautics Administration were intended to ascertain and, as far as possible, reach agreement on the airworthiness requirements of the Civil Aeronautics Administration for ad hoc certifications.
    The discussions were directed to a review of the technical aspects of the De Havilland Comet Mark III which has been ordered by an American operator. The Air Registration Board were able to satisfy the American authorities on many of the British requirements to which the aircraft is being designed, while other requirements were reserved for further consideration, the Civil Aeronautics Administration indicating that they anticipated no difficulty in reaching final agreement. In a third small, but important field, the Americans have expressed doubts and indicated a need for further detailed study. At the close of the discussions, a joint announcement was made stating that there do not appear to be insurmountable obstacles to eventual agreements on certification standards for turbine-powered aircraft.
    The discussions will continue and I am hopeful that complete agreement will he reached on the technical standards and that, when the aeroplane has flown and qualifies for a British certificate, the way will have been cleared for the issue of an American certificate at or about the same time.

    Scotland
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he has yet decided how the civil aviation needs of Scotland are to be met: and, in particular, whether it will be by public corporation or private enterprise.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The air Corporations will continue to be responsible for meeting the air transport needs of Scotland, but I should certainly examine with all the interests concerned any proposal from independent operators to provide the internal services of Scotland with equal efficiency and without cost to the taxpayer.
    Sir T. Moore: While warmly thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask, in view of our sad experience of the loss incurred by State enterprise, would it not be wiser to leave Scotland now to be served by a private undertaking, especially as there is one at Prestwick able and willing to do so?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the private enterprise line that used to run planes from Prestwick to London was discontinued because the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not patronise it?
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable risk that if lines are granted to people who are merely going speculatively to run them for a few weeks and then drop them, it is much better to rely on the well-established and permanent lines which exist under the Corporation?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is no reason why there should not be, in the fullness of time, a happy partnership between private and public operators in Scotland, as I announced, at considerable length, in a statement on 29th October, and there has been no departure from that.
    Mr. Vane: Will my right hon. Friend impress on these airlines, whether public or private, the advantage of stopping in the North of England when flying between Scotland and London?
    Mr. Beswick: Can the Minister say whether there is in Scotland a private enterprise company ready and willing to undertake air services there, including the difficult services?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have always made it plain that the door is open, subject to certain qualifications which I have laid down. It is not for me to say whether there is anyone available to take advantage of that.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that many of the feeder services inside Scotland are quite uneconomic, and private companies will not run them; further, that services have been offered to private companies and they have not been taken up?

    Air Accident, Belfast (Inquiry)
    Captain Orrasked the Minister of Civil Aviation to announce the date and place of the public inquiry into the air disaster at Belfast Airport on 4th January.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): Provisional arrangements have been made for the inquiry to begin on 14th April at Holborn Town Hall, London. A public notice containing full details will be issued shortly.

  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now publish the communication received on 18th February from the Icelandic Government on the fishing dispute, along with his reply; and what were the conditions upon which the Icelandic Government insisted before being prepared to continue discussions.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): I regret that I am still not in a position to make a statement on this matter to the House. I might explain, however, that the Icelandic Government's communication of 18th February did not constitute a formal reply to the proposals made by Her Majesty's Government, but was designed to secure certain elucidations with regard to those proposals.
  Mr. Osborne: Since this dispute has dragged on for so long, and since it is now nearly a month since the last note was received, ought not the House to
  1288
  have the full information, so that we may know who is causing the trouble? May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary if he will do something through Government channels, since the private interests on both sides and in both countries seem to be unable to agree on the matters in dispute?
  Mr. Nutting: The private interests on both sides have not so far got together on this matter. The negotiations have been entirely conducted through Government channels. As to the delay, that is certainly not the fault of Her Majesty's Government, who have made several propositions, each one of which has been rejected by the Icelandic Government.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the last reply constitute a refusal of our proposals or only a request for elucidation?
  Mr. Nutting: It contains, as I said in my original answer, a request for elucidation.
  Mr. Osborne: Since this matter is of such considerable importance to certain parts of the country which are affected, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it again at the first opportunity.

  UNITED NATIONS (CHINESE REPRESENTATION)
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what legal advice he sought when he made inquiries into the proposal for the exclusion of General Chiang Kai-shek's representative from the United Nations Organisation.
  Mr. Nutting: It is not clear to what proposal the hon. Gentleman refers. In replying to recent suggestions that the Chinese seat on the Security Council should be declared vacant, my right hon. Friends and I have been guided by the legal advice normally available within the Foreign Office.
  Mr. Donnelly: Is it not a fact that the Minister of State, in a statement in the debate on 5th February, said that in any case the matter was finally a matter for the General Assembly of the United Nations, and was the right hon. Gentleman basing that statement on the legal advice he received at that time?
  Mr. Nutting: My right hon. Friend said that was a matter for the United Nations General Assembly. That is the fact of the matter.
  Mr. Donnelly: Is there any reason why the Government——
  Mr. Speaker: Question time is now over.

SUDAN AGREEMENT (EGYPTIAN ALLEGATIONS)
Mr. McNeil (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered reports alleging that General Neguib has complained of breaches of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement on the Sudan and whether he has any statement to make.
The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. I understand that General Neguib held a Press conference yesterday, in which he is reported to have made a number of allegations about breaches of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement on the Sudan. I have asked for full information from the Governor-General on all these allegations. I have little doubt that they will prove to be quite unfounded. There is, however, one with which I wish to deal today.
It has been said that we are delaying the elections in the Sudan by refusing to accept the two Sudanese members of the Governor-General's Commission nominated by the Sudanese and approved by the Egyptian Government. The facts are as follow.
On 25th February a meeting of representatives of all four Sudanese Northern political parties voted upon the names of five candidates for the two places to be filled by Sudanese on the Governor-General's Commission. Of these five candidates, Mohammed el Hassan Diab received three votes, Ibrahim Ahmed two votes, and the remainder one vote each. The parties sent the Governor-General and the Egyptian Staff Officer in the Sudan a letter informing them of this. On 2nd March Her Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo formally proposed to the Egyptian Government the nomination of the two candidates who had received three and two votes respectively.
So far as I am aware the Egyptian Government have not formally nominated
1290
any candidates. Meanwhile, however, they have been seeking to promote the candidature of a new candidate, Dardiri Mohammed Osman, who, I understand, supports a closer association between Egypt and the Sudan; one of the original candidates who had received only one vote has stood down in his favour. No votes have yet been cast for Dardiri Osman by any of the Sudanese political parties.
It will thus be seen that Her Majesty's Government have throughout supported the wishes of the Sundanese themselves and we hold the view that, unless the representatives of the political parties inform us that they have altered their decision of 25th February, the candidates who then received most votes should be nominated.
Far from any delay having been caused by Her Majesty's Government, the delay over the appointment of the Sudanese members of the Governor-General's Commission appears now clearly to be due to Egyptian unwillingness to accept the candidates proposed by the Sudanese themselves.
I should like to add that Her Majesty's Government strongly deprecate this attempt to conduct diplomacy by means of statements to the Press. If the Egyptian Government have complaints to make, they should be made either to the Governor-General of the Sudan direct or to Her Majesty's Government through normal diplomatic channels. I have this morning made strong representations to this effect to the Egyptian Ambassador in London, and Her Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo has been instructed to do the same to the Egyptian Government. It is absolutely untrue that Her Majesty's Government are failing to carry out the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement on the Sudan in good faith.
I would also recall the statement of my right hon. Friend on 12th February to the effect that it is the resolve of Her Majesty's Government that the Sudanese shall freely decide their own future. That statement stands and we are determined to ensure that the Sudanese shall have the right to express their views free from interference or unfair pressure from any quarter.
Mr. McNeil: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his

1291
forthright and expansive statement, may I put two points to him? Will he convey by our Ambassador, or other diplomatic methods, to General Neguib that in the matter of the Commission and in other appropriate matters the wishes of the Sudanese must remain paramount and cannot be set aside for Egyptian prejudices or wishes, or, for that matter, the wishes of Her Majesty's Government? Secondly, will he tell General Neguib that progress will not be achieved in the Sudan or in other allied matters by partisan and ambiguous statements, and that Her Majesty's Government cannot proceed with the negotiations unless that is clearly understood and acknowledged.
Mr. Lloyd: The statement which I have made covers the right hon. Gentleman's second supplementary question. As to the first, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we have made that matter quite clear to the Egyptian Government and that we shall certainly continue to do so.
Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in respect of both adherence to the Agreement and impartiality the Egyptians have much to learn from the British officials in the Sudan?
Mr. Rhodes: Is this not another example of the importance of the House having an opportunity of discussing the matter and of stating its view that the Sudanese should be free to obtain their independence without interference and that British personnel, after 50 years of sterling service in the Sudan, should be allowed to continue, at any rate for the next three years, without being subjected to these scurrilous attacks?
Mr. E. Wakefield: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if there is to be any real hope of the Sudanese
1292
people achieving effective, and not merely theoretical, independence, it is vitally necessary to maintain, and even to strengthen further, the relations of mutual confidence and good will which exist between Sudanese political leaders and British administrative personnel? Is it not abundantly clear that General Neguib is flagrantly trying to undermine those good relations? Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask his right hon. Friend to send a message to British officials in the Sudan to the effect that, as long as they stand by the Sudanese, Her Majesty's Government will stand by them?
Mr. Philips Price: Are not General Neguib's tactics connected with his own political instability at home and with his need to satisfy the Cairo and Alexandria mobs?
Mr. Lloyd: In reply to the supplementary questions which have been asked, I would say that I have made a carefully considered statement about the matter which, I believe, covers them, and that I consider it would be wise not to depart from the terms of the statement.
Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when he hopes to be able to make a further statement on the other points raised at General Neguib's Press conference?
Mr. Lloyd: I shall certainly make the statement as soon as I can, but I cannot say when.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No.1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crook-shank.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  As amended (in Committee and on recommittal), further considered.
  IRON AND STEEL BILL

    Clause 14.—(FURNISHING OF INFORMATION TO BOARD AND MINISTER.)
    Amendment moved [10th March], in page 14, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    (3) For the purposes of verifying or amplifying any information or forecast furnished by an iron and steel producer to the Board or to the Minister under either of the preceding subsections of this section, the Board or, as the case may be, the Minister, may by notice in writing require that iron and steel producer to provide facilities for the inspection by any person authorised by the Board or, as the case may be, by the Minister, of any property of or under the control of that iron and steel producer, being property to which that information or forecast relates.—[Mr. I. Hynd.]
    3.39 p.m.
    Mr. John Hynd: It is said that Mr. de Valera was arrested on one occasion when he was speaking in Phoenix Park, Dublin, and was incarcerated for a period of months, and that when he was released from prison he again addressed a meeting in the same park and began, "As I was saying when I was interrupted …"
    I do not propose to repeat what I said last night when I was interrupted after I had risen to move the Amendment, except to say that since the Government have consistently rejected the proposals of the Opposition that the Iron and Steel Board should be able to exercise not only supervision but also control over the industry, we are hopeful that the Minister will at least concede that the Board will be entitled to powers of inspection in obtaining the information they are required to obtain under the Bill or to check it when necessary.
    The House will be aware that the information which the Board require and which they are empowered to obtain under the Bill is very widespread and that the implications of the powers given them in this respect are extremely important. The information which may be obtained covers output and stocks including forecasts of production, capacity, consumption of stocks, raw materials and fuel, proposals for closing works and produc-
    1294
    tion facilities and costs of production for the purposes of Clause 7, and so on, in so far as that information is reasonably required for the purposes of their functions under the Bill.
    These functions cover a very wide field. As the Bill stands we find it difficult to appreciate how the Board are to carry out these functions effectively unless they have some powers of inspection such as are proposed in this Amendment. The functions include the exercise of general supervision over the industry, promotion of general efficiency and adequacy of supply and, in particular, keeping under review such matters as capacity, procuring raw materials and the safety, health and welfare of the workers.
    What we should like the Minister to tell us, if he is unable to accept the Amendment, is how the Board are to carry out these functions if, in obtaining the information necessary to carry out all these functions, they have no powers whatever for checking the accuracy of the information with which they are provided. The health, safety and welfare of the workers are generally covered by the Factories Acts, and factory inspectors have certain powers for inspecting the conditions in the factories in most industries. It seems clear that if that is necessary in these matters it is even more necessary in the much more important and significant matters referred to among the responsibilities given to the Board by this Bill.
    If the Board desire to check the productive capacity of the industry for purposes of ensuring that that capacity is adequate and that the capacity available is being adequately and efficiently used, what are they to do if plant A, whose production capacity is well known to be about x tons, is only producing half that quantity and if, in calling for information, the Board obtain what they might consider an unsatisfactory or inadequate explanation from the firm concerned? How are the Board to find out whether the explanation of the firm is adequate and that the production facilities which should be available in that particular plant are being satisfactorily used?
    On the question of raw material provision, if we had a rush of panic buying by America and stockpiling of essential

    1295
    raw materials which created shortages in other countries, particularly those short of dollars, it might be that some hoarding of such materials would take place in our own steel works. That is not unknown in the steel industry of this country. Would not some powers of inspection by the Board, or the Minister, be desirable to ensure that such raw materials as we were able to obtain and were seeking fairly to distribute among the firms were being fairly distributed and that an unfair distribution was not being made to firms which were hoarding those essential raw materials?
    The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is not in his place at the moment, agreed yesterday that such a situation might arise and that the allocation by the Government of scarce raw materials might be a very important factor in the situation in which our steel industry and the country might find themselves at any particular time. The Minister agrees and stated yesterday that the question of the fair distribution of scarce raw materials is a matter for the Government. Therefore, it would seem that if this function is to be properly administered by either the Minister or the Board, they should be entitled under the Bill itself to the necessary powers of inspection.
    3.45 p.m.
    When one looks at the Bill one finds that there are a great many cases in which this obviously would be desirable and necessary. In Clause 3 (1, b) it is provided that the Board shall keep under review
    "the arrangements for procuring and distributing raw materials and fuel for use in the iron and steel industry;"
    In Clause 10 it is provided that
    "If the Board are satisfied, after consultation … that satisfactory arrangements do not exist and operate for securing … importation and distribution of … raw material … the Board shall make arrangements …"
    to ensure
    "importation or distribution of that raw material."
    Again, the question arises, how are they to carry out that function unless they are really satisfied, not only after consultation but after inspection, if necessary, that their intervention may be necessary?
    1296
    In Clause 28 (4) we find that the responsibilities given to the Minister extend to authorising persons
    "on the production … of duly authenticated document … to inspect at any reasonable hour, at the premises where they are kept, books, records and other documents relating to the undertaking,"
    and penalties are laid down for any firm or person who fail to comply with that subsection. That, of course, is an admission in itself that one cannot entirely rely upon the firms themselves providing all the information and providing it accurately. In so far as it is admitted that there must be powers of inspection at least of books and documents, we submit that power is no less necessary in the matter of stocks, raw material, fuel and production facilities and all the other things provided for in the Bill.
    In Clause 4 (2, b) it is provided that if the Minister is satisfied that production facilities are inadequate, he may provide production facilities himself and in subsection (3) if he finds facilities provided
    "which would not otherwise be kept in use"
    he is entitled to take action. Again, how is he to be satisfied unless he has this power of inspection of the available stocks?
    I hope that the Minister will not simply reply that he cannot accept the Amendment because it is unnecessary in so far as the Government are prepared to rely on the honesty of the individual firms. The Minister cannot know who will be running the steel industry after the Bill has passed. He will not know who will comprise the firms owning the units. Even if he did know, it is provided in the Bill itself that in so far as documents and false information and so on are concerned, certain powers such as we ask for in regard to stocks and production facilities are necessary.
    If this Amendment cannot be accepted, if it is not proposed to include in the Bill any powers of inspection at all, why have a Steel Board? How are the Board to promote efficiency unless they have these powers? If one considers the history of the industry, one finds the case for this Amendment is overwhelmingly supported by events during the last 35 or 40 years. One remembers the rush of capital investment during the 1914–18 war; followed in the 1930's by the semi-bankruptcy of the industry and by protective devices and hidden subsidies. It will

    1297
    be agreed that there was left a great deal of obsolete plant and undesirable and unsatisfactory conditions.
    In 1939, on the eve of the Second World War, when more than at any time in our history the maximum efficiency of the steel industry was desirable in the national interest, the industry was found to have allowed itself to get into a state of semi-obsolescence. That could happen again. Certain firms may have obsolescent plant. They may have allowed themselves to get into a condition which was reported very fully in "The Times" in, I believe, 1945. I will read one sentence:
    "There are too many works which 'sprawl'—there is no other word for it—works which are a tangled riddle of gaps, corners, adjacent shops alternately empty and over-crowded, illogical separation, unbalance, and tortuous routes and methods in the handling of materials."
    That is a tragic picture of conditions then. How are we to know that such conditions will not occur again? Can we expect that firms will, from time to time, report to the Minister that conditions in their shops are entirely unsatisfactory; that there is complete inefficiency? I can imagine only one occasion when firms would voluntarily report such things, and that would be when they were seeking some kind of protection or subsidy. Were that the only reason for such reports, they would be even more suspect and more likely to require very close inspection by the Board or the Minister.
    We consider that this power of inspection is fundamental to the efficient operation of the Board and the supervision which the Board and the Minister are expected to apply to the industry. It is necessary not only to ensure that the steel industry is effective and economically efficient in every respect from the national point of view, but also to protect the public and the consumer. The consumers' council has now disappeared and there is no effective protection at all for the consumer.
    There is also the necessity to protect responsible firms against irresponsible firms. Yesterday, the Minister went out of his way to say:
    "Some foundries have excellent conditions; I have been very much impressed by some that I have visited, but others leave much to be desired. There is a wide gap between the best and the worst in the foundry industry."—
    1298
    [OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th March. 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1218–9.]
    Responsible firms are prepared to carry out their responsibilities and involve themselves in the additional production costs which are sometimes inseparable from them. This may mean keeping shops well organised and cleared, providing adequate breathing space, and healthy arrangements for the workers. They may be penalised by other firms who may dodge their responsibilities and, while trying to economise at the expense of workers, find they are economising at the expense of production.
    The Minister and the Government have rejected the old laissez-faire idea. They have agreed upon the need for public supervision combined with private enterprise in the operation of the industry. The present Secretary of State for the Colonies who, when the Conservatives were in opposition, was mainly responsible for their attitude in industrial matters, said in the last Parliament:
    "On the one hand, we believe that the industry must have the benefit of a massive central organisation. On the other, we think that a great basic industry like the steel industry, employing a large number of men, and considering the widespread use of steel in other industries, and the power of the steel industry to contribute to our exports, is so important that it should have Government supervision. We do not believe that it would be right, where such large and vital interests are concerned, to permit competition to play over the steel industry without any Government interference or without Government approval."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 94–5.]
    I submit that this Bill means nothing, unless the Board and/or the Minister are to be allowed to exercise powers of inspection when they consider it necessary.
    Mr. George Chetwynd: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Government have agreed that supervision is necessary because of the nature of the industry. We think that the best way to supervise it is to own and control it, though we cannot expect the Government to agree. But we insist that supervision must be a reality. In this Bill the Minister gives the Board certain responsibilities for supervision without adequate power to make a success of such supervision. This Amendment is one of the means by which we hope the Board shall have power to supervise the industry.

    1299
    In Committee the hon. Member for Esher(Mr. Robson Brown) said that this power was not needed, because no steel company would prevent the Steel Board from coming into their works to have a look round to see that everything was in order. I am not so sure about that. I do not think this industry can be run on the "old boy" basis—"Come along, old boy, have a drink, and after lunch we will look round the works. Everything will be all right, because we knew you were coming."
    It may be necessary for a spot check to be carried out, not by the Board but by a team of experts who know what they are looking for, and are capable of getting the information they wish to obtain. As well as having access to books and figures, it is essential that the Board should have access to the works where they will be able to check the cost of production, efficiency, and so on. The supervision of the Board would then be a reality and would operate in the interests of both the industry and the public.
    4.0 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): Without repeating too much of what was said by the Solicitor-General during the Committee stage, I will try to answer the very full statement made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) and the somewhat shorter but perhaps as relevant observation of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). This Amendment seeks to give the Board or, as the case may be, the Minister, power to inspect the property of iron and steel producers for the purpose of verifying or amplifying any information or forecast furnished to them under this Clause.
    We start off by disliking any power to inspect other people's property, but we should not hesitate to introduce such a power if we thought it essential. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to give us the point that we are more anxious than they are to make a success of this Bill. We have studied the matter carefully. I remind the House that the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, which was passed by a Labour Government and which provides for the collecting of information from industry, does not include any power to inspect property for the purpose of verifying or amplifying any information. I do not pretend that that is a complete answer, but it should be borne in mind.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Does that Act provide for the kind of things already provided for in this Bill, such as the inspection of documents?
    Mr. Low: The hon. Gentleman spoke for some time. I have been on my feet for two minutes. I hope that he will allow me to develop my argument.
    The hon. Gentleman suggests that without such a provision as this the Board will be ineffective and, to use a metaphor employed on another occasion by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh), will be deprived of the use of their eyes. But no one can seriously argue that the Board will not frequently visit works in the course of their general duties.
    In reply to what was said by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) when last we discussed this matter, I would point out that there is no power in this Bill to prevent the Board doing that. The right hon. Gentleman stressed the point—perhaps he overstressed it—that the Board were debarred from visiting works. They are not. What is suggested in the Amendment is that the Board need authority to inspect property without the owner's permission, presumably because, first, some producers might give inadequate or incorrect information and might then refuse permission for the Board to visit their works and, secondly, because an inspectorial power would be essential to enable the Board in those circumstances to fulfil their duties or enforce their powers under the Bill.
    The Solicitor-General dealt with the question of enforcement during the Committee stage. I need not mention it now. I do not expect that it is likely that any iron and steel producer will refuse to allow members or representatives of the Board to visit his works in the normal course of any of the Board's duties of supervision. The industry has a reputation for open house. I see that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) indicates agreement. I doubt whether there is any steel works in the country which would not welcome the hon. Member for Rotherham if he cared to visit them.
    Mr. Jack Jones: That was true before nationalisation and denationalisation. We were welcome at all

    1301
    times in the past when we paid social and technical visits. We want to be sure that we shall be just as welcome when the Board are not satisfied and suspect that a company is not playing the game. I wonder whether we should be so welcome then.
    Mr. Low: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the time before nationalisation. We shall soon be back to that situation with the industry under the supervision of the Board. I see no reason why there should be a change of attitude.
    If we assume that the Board were refused access to a steel works, how would an inspectorial power help them to carry out their functions under the Bill? That is the kernel of this matter. Clause 14 enables the Board to secure all the information relating to production which they will want for their general duties. No one has denied that. The argument today has been that the information may be inaccurate or inadequate. Why should that be so? It is the very essence of this Bill that each company should manage its own detailed affairs subject to the supervision of the Board. Each company will want to see that the Board's supervisory policy is based on correct facts.
    The Board's general duties cover a number of matters in which they will be able to influence the policy of industry by the standing and prestige which they establish. It will not help the Board, in seeking the co-operation of industry, to arm them with inspectorial powers. Not only will it not help the Board but, taking the points made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe, I very much doubt whether an inspection would add to the information available. The hon. Gentleman mentioned capacity. I doubt whether an inspection by an inspector sent to a works would add anything to the information already given to the Board by the company. It certainly would not in the matter of stocks. If a company really wanted to prevent the Board knowing what stocks of raw materials it had, it would presumably take action to prevent an inspector finding out about those stocks.
    Either we assume that there will be cooperation between the Board and the industry, in which case this question does not arise, or we assume that there will be deliberate obstruction of the Board by the industry. I do not think that is
    1302
    an assumption we should normally make, although we make it for the purpose of this debate. But I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman's proposal would help in those circumstances.
    The Board's functions include certain specific duties and powers for which accurate detailed information may be most important. In relation to their particular functions there are provisions in the Bill to secure that all the necessary information is accurate and adequate. On prices, there is a special provision in Clause 14 (2) that the Board may require information necessary for their price determining functions to be certified as correct by auditors. In relation to development, the Board have powers under Clause 5 to call for important schemes to be submitted to them for their consent.
    No one can say that the Board are limited in respect of those schemes in the amount of information that they can acquire. The Board will wish to be satisfied about any proposals submitted to them before they give consent. If any producer refuses to allow them or their representatives to visit a works which they wish to visit when a development scheme is before them, it is unlikely that they will give their consent. That covers prices and development.
    I now come to raw materials and the functions of the Board under Clause 10. I think that I can include training and education, because the same point applies. The Board have certain powers they can use if they are not satisfied with existing arrangements. Surely, the hon. Gentleman can see that a threat of action which those carrying out the existing arrangements consider contrary to their interests is bound to be enough to ensure that full and accurate information is immediately available to the Board. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says it is the other way round, but, surely, if one is threatened with action which one considers contrary to one's interests, and one could escape that action by giving the information wanted, one would give that information.
    Mr. George Darling: What about escaping the threatened action by withholding the information? Surely that is more likely to happen.
    Mr. Low: No, because I do not see how the Board could then be satisfied with the existing arrangements.
    The Board have certain other duties in regard to health, safety and welfare measures. Under the Factories Acts inspectors have the right to enter works in connection with matters concerning those Acts. The Board is concerned with the collective arrangements inside the industry for the promotion of health, safety and welfare, and they will secure all the information required for carrying out these duties from their consultation with both sides of the industry.
    Finally, on the last specific function mentioned in the list given in Clause 3, we can all agree that the inspection of property will not help the Board in relation to its duties regarding joint consultation. Therefore, in our view, the case for providing power to inspect property is not made out. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said on 24th February:
    "It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take wider powers, either for themselves or for a Board of this character, than they consider to be essential."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1971.]
    We have, therefore, examined closely every suggestion put forward, and I think we are right in saying that this is not essential. Unnecessary snooping is bad in itself, and we do not wish to destroy confidence in the Board by giving them bureaucratic powers to snoop if we are satisfied that they do not need them. Nor do we wish to prevent the full and friendly exchange of information and ideas between the industry and the Board by labelling the Board's representative as an authorised inspector when he makes visits to works.
    That is that side of the picture. On the other hand, we have sought to ensure that the Board can obtain all the information they need, and I give the House the assurance that we have examined the matter very carefully to see that Clause 14 does provide the Board with the means of getting all the information which they should have. Co-operation between the industry and the Board, on which this Bill is based, will enable the Board to visit the works they wish to visit and to consult the producers they wish to consult. The Board will neither be blind,
    1304
    nor, to extend the metaphor introduced into the debate by the hon. Member for Islington, North, will they be deaf. We have every confidence that we have made provision to ensure that the Board are able to do their duty, and we have as much interest as hon. Gentlemen opposite in ensuring that. We are satisfied with Clause 14 as it is, and I hope the House will also be satisfied.
    Mr. Jack Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman make that point clear? He has made the statement that the Board will be able to visit the works they wish to visit, but, if they wish to visit a works and the management of that works do not wish them to visit it, will they still have the power to do so?
    Mr. Low: I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening to the exact words I used. I said that the co-operation between the industry and the Board, on which this Bill is based, will enable the Board to visit the works they wish to visit and consult the producers they wish to consult. That is the spirit behind the Bill, and that is the spirit which we expect to exist in the industry. We have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, every justification for forming that view from our experience in the past, and the hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to that spirit on many occasions. We are satisfied that it will continue, and that it will be a better basis for ensuring that the Board secures full information.
    Mr. Jones: That does not answer my question. It may be that a firm may not wish to be visited by the Board's representatives. In that case, will the Board still have the power to visit that works, regardless of that firm's wishes? May we have an answer?
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Obviously, the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) is that the Board will have no such power. This Amendment crystallises the different views of the two sides of the House of the sort of status and authority which the Board should and must have to carry out their duties. Throughout our discussions, we have argued that this Board, for one reason or another, will not have the authority and status they should have in

    1305
    order to carry out the duties of the supervisory authority over the industry.
    I do not want to go over the other Amendments which we have discussed previously, but I suggest that, in this Amendment, we ask for a very simple thing—that the Board, which are to have wide supervisory responsibilities, should be permitted to have a look at works when they want to. If that Amendment is not accepted, the Government, obviously, do not mean business and do not mean the Board to be an effective body or that they should have—and I have used these words frequently, because they are at the root of the matter—the proper status with which they should be regarded by the industry if it is to follow the guidance and obey the directions which the Board may desire to give it.
    The Parliamentary Secretary says that this is all right, and that the spirit of this Board will be such that they will get co-operation with the firms over which they will have authority, and that, in that spirit of co-operation, an inspector of the Board will always be welcome. How can the hon. Gentleman know that it will be possible to get that spirit of co-operation with 2,400 firms? I have no doubt that most of the firms will throw their doors open to the Board and their representatives whenever those representatives seek to visit those works; but, on the other hand, there may be many firms which, for one reason or another, and may be for a bad reason—because everybody in the industry does not possess a social conscience; some loathe the idea of having the Board over them at all—will be obstinate and say that the Board have not been given power of inspection by the Government. Therefore, they will say that the representatives of the Board shall not be admitted to their works.
    It seems to us that this is a quite ridiculous situation for the Government to defend. The Government say that books may be examined, but, in regard to plant, the Board shall have no power to do that. It is surely self-evident that, if that Board are set up—and I must repeat the words I have used in the discussion of every Amendment—with the alleged purpose of having public or Government supervision over the industry, the Board should have the right to inspect such works as they like when they like and whenever they believe that
    1306
    they information given by that works needs verification or amplification. That is all that we are asking.
    Let us take one other point. Under Clause 4, the Board can ask any firm for information about its capacity to produce for any purpose. Productive capacity is a matter of opinion, and a firm may well say that their productive capacity is so-and-so, that their furnaces can produce such an amount per week, and that, in fact, that is what they are producing. But it may be the opinion of the Board or of an expert that the productive capacity of that works is much greater than that. It may even be the opinion of the men working there, and it is surely right that the Board should be able to say "We should like to check up and have a look at your works." In all probability the works would say, "Come along and have a look." But some might not. Anyhow, as the Board have such full powers for the inspection of books, why not give them the power to inspect the works as well?
    We are bound to be suspicious about this because that power was in the Bill when it was first printed. Someone must have brought pressure to bear on the Government to remove that power. It may be that was done by a section of the industry or of the Tory Party. I do not know. Why is that right denied by the Government who refuse to accept our Amendments on this matter? It seems to us that in refusing to accept this Amendment the Government are taking the "vision" out of the supervision which the Board are supposed to exercise over the industry.
    The situation is ridiculous. We have certainly not been given an answer to our case despite the length, and. I thought, on this occasion, rather laboured arguments put up by the Parliamentary Secretary. We take the view that if the Board are refused this right, they cannot have the status, the authority or the power which they should have to exert control and influence over the industry. We look upon this matter as a cardinal point.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that I made a mistake when I stated that the Board would be debarred from visiting works. I may have said that, but what I meant to say was that the Board would

    1307
    be debarred the right of entering and inspecting the works. That crystallises the difference between us as to the status of the Board. The suggestion that such a power might lead to snooping is really ridiculous. Every public body that is charged with supervisory powers has to have inspectors. Though one may call them snoopers, the fact remains that they are doing their job. Local authorities and the right hon. Gentleman's own Government have a large number of people who look round to see what is happen-
    ing. They are not necessarily evil people; they are merely doing what is right.
    Is it suggested that this Board will be so irresponsible as to send people unnecessarily all over the country? Of course not. We feel so strongly on the matter that we propose to divide the House on this Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 248.

    Division No. 120.]

    AYES

    [4.25 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Follick, M.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Adams, Richard

    Foot, M. M.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Albu, A. H.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Glanville, James

    Mellish, R. J.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Balfour, A.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

    Monslow, W.

    Bartley, P.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Moody, A. S.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Grey, C. F.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Bence, C. R.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Morley, R.

    Benson, G.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Beswick, F.

    Hale, Leslie

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

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Mort, D. L.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Moyle, A.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hannan, W.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Murray, J. D.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Nally, W.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hastings, S.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hayman, F. H.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

    Brockway, A. F.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Orbach, M.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Oswald, T.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Holman, P.

    Padley, W. E.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Paget, R. T.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Carmichael, J.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Pannell, Charles

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Parker, J.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Paton, J.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pearson, A.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Peart, T. F.

    Coldrick, W.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Collick, P. H.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Popplewell, E.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Porter, G.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Grossman, R. H. S.

    Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Rankin, John

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Reeves, J.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Reid, William(Camlachie)

    Deer, G.

    Keenan, W.

    Rhodes, H.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Richards, R.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Kinley, J.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Edelman, M.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Ross, William

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Royle, C.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Short, E. W

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Logan, D. G.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Fienburgh, W.

    McGovern, J.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Finch, H. J.

    McInnes, J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    McLeavy, F.

    Steele, T.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Thornton, E.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Timmons, J.

    Whitelay, Rt. Hon. W.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Tomney, F.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Willey, F. T.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Sylvester, G.O.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

    Winterbotlom, Richard (Brightside)

    Thomas, Iowerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Yates, V. F.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    West, D. G.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Wilkins and Mr. K. Robinson.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    McCallum, Major D.

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Gammans, L. D.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Arbuthnot, John

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Godber, J. B

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Gower, H. R.

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Barber, Anthony

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Grimond, J.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Baxter, A. B.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Marples, A.E.

    Birch, Nigel

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maude, Angus

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Maclesfield)

    Maudling, R.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hay, John

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Mellor, Sir John

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Heath, Edward

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Braine, B. R.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythensnawe)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Holland-Marlin, C. J.

    Nicholls, Harmer

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Holt, A. F.

    Noble, Cmdr A. H. P.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Butcher, Sir Harbert

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M P.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Campbell, Sir David

    Horobin, I. M.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Carr, Robert

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Odey, G. W.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    O'Neill, Pheim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Channon, H.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Ormshy-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

    Cole, Norman

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Osborne, C.

    Colegate, W. A.

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

    Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Hylton-Footer, H. B. H.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Jennings, R.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

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

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Joynson-Hicks. Hon. L. W.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Kaberry, D.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Pewell, J. Enoch

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Lambton, Viscount

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Rigby, S. Wingfield

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

    Redmayne, M.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Remnant, Hon. P

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Lindsay, Martin

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Drewe, C.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Robson Brown, W

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

    Lloyd, RI. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Russell, R. S.

    Fell, A.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Low, A. R. W.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    1310

    1311

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Summers, G. S.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Shepherd, William

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Teeling, W.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Thomas, R. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Wellwood, W.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Tilney, John

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Speir, R. M.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Wills, G.

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Turton, R. H.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Vesper, D. F.

    Mr. Studholme and

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Wade, D. W.

    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Amendment made, in page 14, line 41, at end, insert:
    (4) The Board may by notice in writing require any iron and steel producer or any such person as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection, to furnish to the Board such information as may reasonably be required by the Board for the purpose of giving advice or information to the Minister on any matters referred by him to the Board under subsection (2) of the section of this Act (Consultation with the Board on matters concerning the European Coal and Steel Community).—[Mr. Sandys.]

    Clause 15.—(ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS OF BOARD, PUBLICATION OF STATISTICS, ETC.)
    4.30 p.m.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I beg to move, in page 15, line 8, after "year," to insert:
    "and the report shall cover any particular matters on which the Minister has requested them to report."
    I do not think that this Amendment needs much introduction. It arises out of the debate which we had in Committee on an Opposition Amendment which asked that the Board's report should cover certain specific subjects, such as development and matters of that kind. In reply, I pointed out that there were certain disadvantages in putting into statutory form a rigid list of topics which were to be covered each year in the Board's report.
    I said that I recognised that there was validity in the idea behind the Opposition Amendment—that is that we should have some control over the form of the Board's report—and that I would table an Amendment which would give the Minister the right to direct the Board to include in their report certain specific subjects in which Parliament or the public were taking particular interest at that time. I said, however, that there
    1312
    was no doubt that the Board, if they were a competent Board, would, in any case, see that those subjects were covered in the report, but that this was a case of making sure and I agreed to table an Amendment. I hope that, without need of much discussion, it will be approved.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 15, line 9, at the end, to insert:
    (2) The Board shall from time to time and whenever the Minister so requests furnish to the Minister a special report relating to the future development over a period of years of the iron and steel industry, prepared in the light of their consultations under subsection (1) of section four of this Act, and the Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any such special report furnished under this subsection.
    We discussed the substance of this Amendment very fully at an earlier stage. I would point out, however, that there are two improvements from the point of view of the Opposition. One is that it is quite clear that the Board have a duty to prepare this special report from time to time. The other is that this report will not now have to await the annual report before being given to the Minister and laid before the House. I hope that the Opposition will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 15, line 12, after "Board," to insert:
    "in such form as the Minister may direct."
    This Amendment follows on an undertaking which I gave in the earlier debate that I would bring the provision governing the Board's accounts into conformity with the phraseology used in the 1949 Act. I hope that this form of the Amendment will be acceptable to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 15, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    "any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one hundred and sixty-one of the Companies Act, 1948, by the Board of Trade."
    The object of the Amendment as accepted by the House in Committee, was to ensure that the accounts of the Board and—according to a later Amendment—those of the Holding and Realisation Agency would be audited by accountants of the highest qualifications. But we were asked if we ought to close the door to other organisations in the future which might have the same high or even higher standards. The Companies Act does not close the door and we were asked, "Why should this Bill?"
    There is obvious force in that argument. The only question on which we had to satisfy ourselves was whether the Board of Trade, under Section 161 of the Companies Act, would apply a lower standard than that required for statutory authorities. They do not do so now—the five named bodies are the only bodies recognised by the Board of Trade under Section 161 (1, a) of the Companies Act. I cannot see how they can do so in the future, since the standard in the Companies Act must be the standard required for auditing the accounts of banks, the insurance companies and the largest public companies.
    Our new proposal to the House is, therefore, to leave the names of the five bodies in the Bill and to add a proviso in the form proposed, whereby any other body approved by the Board of Trade for the purposes of Section 161 (1, a) of the Companies Act may also be accepted for the Board or the Agency. We thus safeguard the standard of auditing and we do not close the door for ever to organisations which may qualify hereafter.
    Mr. G. P. Stevens: I regret that the Government have seen fit to add these words. I have four reasons, which, I think, are extremely powerful reasons, for regretting it. In the first place, it is perfectly plain, and, indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary has just said so, that the public interest requires that the highest possible standards should apply to these people who will audit these very important accounts.
    1314
    No evidence has been adduced during the Committee stage or this afternoon that there are any other bodies with the same high standards as the bodies which are specified. If that be true, it must also be true that to open the door to other bodies must tend to lower the standards which we have in mind, and for that reason I deplore this opening of the door.
    My second reason is this. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the wording of the Companies Act. He did not tell the House, as I think he might have done, that the wording in the 1947 Act was temporary. In 1947, the various accountancy bodies were having a little domestic disagreement. They were endeavouring to obtain co-ordination in the profession as regards registration, and the Government of the day felt that they could not wait until the profession had settled their differences before agreeing on the wording of Section 161.
    For that reason there was indefinite wording. That is no longer the case. We have not succeeded in settling our differences; we have not been able to co-ordinate the profession. The question is a dead one, and one sees no reason, therefore, for continuing these temporary words.
    Mr. G. Darling: It is a temporary Bill.
    Mr. Stevens: The Companies Act is not intended to be temporary; neither is the Iron and Steel Bill. Why not follow more recent precedents? Why go back to an earlier precedent? Not only the nationalisation Acts themselves but many Acts passed between 1948 and 1951 specified the particular bodies, and I should have thought it would have been wiser to use the more modern and better precedent.
    In another place, a similar point was raised recently in connection with the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Bill. That is a relatively small Measure. It is perfectly true that it does not specify any particular person to act as an auditor, but that point was raised in another place and the noble Lord who replied for the Government, though he did not propose in this case to specify in the Bill those persons who should be auditors for the purposes of the Bill, gave a categorical assurance that no one other than the members of these specified bodies would be so appointed.

    1315
    It seems to me that if the Government are prepared to give a categorical and unqualified assurance, they should not be frightened of translating that assurance into legislation. I regret this Amendment, and in the name of progress and the encouragement of ever higher standards of accountancy I hope that the Government will look at this matter again when the Bill is in its passage through another place.
    Mr. John Rankin: In view of the comparatively short time at our disposal, I do not want to enter into any debate on the issues raised by the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) other than to say that I disagree completely with his argument. The Minister, through the Parliamentary Secretary, in Committee, entered into an obligation to look at this matter and to bring forward an Amendment which would meet the consensus of opinion then expressed. To ensure that he did so, I tabled an Amendment in line 22, at the end, to insert:
    "any other body of accountants approved for the purposes of this Act."
    To emphasise my disagreement with the hon. Gentleman, I shall not move my Amendment because I consider that the Minister has fulfilled completely the obligation which he entered into during the Committee stage. I want to thank him on behalf of some of the bodies to which the hon. Member for Langstone referred.
    Mr. R. Jennings: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens). This is not the first, the second or the third time that I have spoken on an Amendment of this nature. Never yet have the bodies concerned refused to accept the wording which now appears in the Bill. The same matter was raised in our discussions on the late Government's nationalisation Bills, including the Gas and Electricity Bills.
    The form of wording which is used in this Bill was accepted by hon. Members opposite when their party were in power. Why should they seek to change the wording now? The Companies Act was a temporary Measure, and during the proceedings on that Measure the Lord Chancellor said that it was temporary.
    1316
    It was hoped that there would be coordination between the various accountancy bodies.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Austen Albu: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the various Companies Acts have been consolidated and that it is now called the Companies Act, 1948.
    Mr. Jennings: That does not affect the statement of the Lord Chancellor that he hoped that this would be a temporary Measure. Some hon. Members say this is a closed shop. But what about the doctors, solicitors, barristers and dentists? Any one of us with a bad tooth would not go to a barrister to have it taken out. That is the simple point. I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone said, and I hope that the Minister, if he cannot do so now, will see that an Amendment is brought forward in another place so that the wording remains as it is in the Bill at present.
    Mr. William Shepherd: I want to make it clear that the views put forward by my two hon. Friends the Members for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) and Hallam (Mr. Jennings) do not necessarily represent the views of all hon. Members on this side of the House.
    I thought my hon. Friend was stretching a point when he commended his views in the name of progress. I am not entirely satisfied that this system of registration through the back door is a good one, and I opposed it in Committee. If we are to establish standards of competence in accountancy, they ought to be established in a Bill specially provided for the purpose so that all the pros and cons could properly be discussed. I do not think this is a good method, although I agree that this Amendment is a great improvement.
    Mr. Jennings: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the best qualification is examination?
    Mr. Shepherd Mr. Shepherd indicated assent.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 15, line 23, to leave out "publish or," and to insert:
    "make available to the public at a reasonable price copies of, and."

    1317
    This Amendment follows from our earlier debate when the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said that as the Bill now stood it might be necessary for her or for her constituents to make a journey on foot to the offices of the Board to inspect the Board's accounts. I undertook to see what I could do at a later stage to spare the hon. Lady any trouble or inconvenience of that kind. I have received a note from the hon. Lady to say that she is sorry she is unable to be here to receive her prize in person. I hope that this Amendment will give her satisfaction.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 17.—(DUTY OF IRON AND STEEL HOLDING AND REALISATION AGENCY TO RETURN IRON AND STEEL UNDERTAKINGS TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.)
    Mr, Jack Jones: I beg to move, in page 16, line 13, after "Treasury," to insert "and of the Board."
    This Amendment raises the question of the duties and the work of the Board. We suggest that in the selling of one of John Bull's best assets—the steel industry—the Board should come into the picture at the earliest possible stage and that their opinion and approval should be sought in regard to the Treasury proposals.
    The Treasury officials who will be concerned with the selling of the assets will probably be persons who know as much about the steel industry as I know about the Treasury—and that is extremely little. We do not expect Treasury officials to know anything about the technical aspects and the long-term production of the industry. It would be very easy to accept offers for the whole or part of the industry on a financial basis and to make a quick sale which might have a very serious long-term effect upon the industry from the technical and productive point of view.
    We suggest that this Board, which will consist of the best brains that the Minister can get together having regard to all the circumstances, should come into the picture, not after damage has been done, but before it can be done. This Amendment makes provision for that, so that in the period between the Board being set up and the prospectus being floated, in whatever form it may take, the opinion of the Board is sought.
    1318
    I notice that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is here, and he will no doubt tell us that in page 17, line 40:
    "… the Agency shall consult with the Board …"
    But we are not satisfied on this question of consultation. We know that consultation will take place; that will be only common sense; but we want the Board to give their approval. The Treasury and the Board should jointly approve the sale of these assets.
    We are vitally concerned with this problem. Here is an opportunity for the industry to be put into shape both technically and strategically. Questions have often been raised as to whether the industry shall expand and who shall own it, but nobody has paid much regard to the question of the strategic situation. I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I could talk for a long time about the mistake Germany made by putting all her eggs in one basket in the Ruhr. The Minister should have given consideration to this matter. He has very often heard our opinions, and I know that he has been impressed by the technical and constructive knowledge possessed by this side of the House. This debate has taken a constructive line rather than the politically venomous one which some people might have expected.
    It is vitally important that the Board should be called in before the assets have been disposed of and that they should not have to go to the Minister afterwards and say, "If we had had the opportunity to state our opinion previously, what we are now prevented from doing could have been done." That position could easily arise. There may not be a tremendous rush to purchase a lot of the industry, but there may be a grab for some of it, and it is that part which will be easily saleable which could be grouped with advantage from the long-term point of view—the promotion of the efficient, economic and adequate supply of steel.
    This Amendment has nothing but a constructive outlook, and it is put forward on the premise that the Board shall be called in to deal with long-term technical and other problems, rather than the short-term question of, "Sell what you can and then start to remedy the defects that arise from so doing."
    Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said, we discussed this identical Amendment at some length on the Committee stage. Since then I have studied what was said by hon. Members opposite, but I have not been convinced that we were wrong in the attitude we adopted on that occasion.
    As the hon. Member for Rotherham will recall, I said—and on reconsideration I think I was right—that in a small way this was an Amendment which would affect the whole scheme and system of the Bill—the system of a Board responsible to the Minister and an Agency responsible to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot help feeling that if the Board are brought in as this Amendment would bring them in we should completely confuse the direct chain of responsibility of the Agency to my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend's responsibility to this House for the actions of the Agency.
    Hon. Members will remember that during the course of the Committee stage debate, which roamed over the whole of the relations between the Board and the Agency both under this Clause and the following one, the greatest anxiety was shown on the benches opposite about their relationship in connection with regrouping. I must not anticipate an Amendment on the Order Paper, but I may say that we are endeavouring to meet that point and that at a later stage I hope to have the opportunity of moving an Amendment dealing with regrouping. That was not the only thing which was in the minds of hon. Members opposite but it was, on the other hand, a substantial point which we have endeavoured to meet.
    On the broad issue, we find it impossible to accept a proposal which would cut right across the main scheme of the Bill and would prevent my right hon. Friends being directly responsible to this House, clearly and without limitation, for the actions of the bodies for which they are responsible under the Bill. There will not be very much practical inconvenience arising under the present scheme of the Bill. There will be not only the closest consultation between the Agency and the Board but equally, at
    1320
    their level, consultation between the Departments of State over which my right hon. Friends preside.
    As the Parliamentary Secretary said on a previous Amendment, we are at least as anxious as hon. Members opposite that this scheme shall work properly, and on thinking this matter over as dispassionately as I can in the light of what was said, I think we should be making a great mistake if we turned the powers of the Board into the sort of powers which this Amendment would involve in their relationship with the Agency. Therefore, on the general consideration of the propriety, desirability and essentiality of the closest consultation taking place, we consider that it is better to leave the Bill as it stands and let my right hon. Friends—if the apprehensions of hon. Members opposite are justified—answer to this House clearly and openly for what is done.
    While I appreciate the tone in which the hon. Member for Rotherham moved this Amendment, for the reasons I have given and in view of the fact that we have had ample opportunity to consider it and, on the previous occasion, to discuss it, I cannot advise my right hon. Friend to accept it.
    Mr. Jack Jones: We made it very clear on the Committee stage that we had no desire that the Board should have anything to do with financial arrangements between buyers and sellers once the physical and technical question of what should be sold had been settled. Those of us who know the industry can tell the Minister that this matter is of extreme importance and we fear that the Government will learn when it is probably too late to remedy it. We ask that it be given consideration now.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that no one will deal with the complex affairs of this important and technical industry without taking advantage of all the technical advice which is available. In my right hon. Friend's Department, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) will know, there is a great deal of technical knowledge. There will be ample opportunity for the Board—I was grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for his kindly references to the Board—to take advantage of

    1321
    all the technical information available. Obviously any Minister of the Crown who is to answer to the House for handling a matter of this sort will not ignore the technical advice available. The hon. Gentleman need not be apprehensive that we shall deal with the industry other than on the basis of taking the very best advice.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman has put forward the best possible case against the Amendment, but we are still unconvinced. We believe that the Board should come formally into the matter and be consulted and give its approval on technical grounds before any sale takes place. However, as we have yet to deal with Amendments of even greater importance than this one, we do not propose to divide the House.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 16, line 13, after "determine," to insert:
    "and shall so discharge the said duty as to secure, without disregard to other relevant matters, that the consideration obtained from the disposal of assets is financially adequate."
    The Amendment covers the same ground in its context as a later Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend—in page 17, line 36—and I hope it may be for the convenience of the House, and in accordance with Mr. Speaker's Ruling, for discussion to take place upon both Amendments at the same time. I understand that will be convenient to the Opposition and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) desires to move an Amendment to the second Amendment later.
    The House will recall that on the Committee stage there was considerable discussion on the general question whether it was intended to dispose of the industry for, as someone poetically suggested, a song. We assured the Committee on a number of occasions—I should have thought it was an assurance that hardly needed to be given by a Treasury Minister—that we should attempt to secure a fair price for the taxpayer for this very valuable property. I believe hon. Members on both sides of the Committee accepted that that was our view, but, not unnaturally, a preference was expressed for a provision in
    1322
    a statute as superior to the most sincere of Ministerial assurances. Therefore, I undertook to see if we could put words into the Bill in order to make quite clear that what has always been our intention should be in the Act itself.
    It is for that reason that we have put down the two Amendments. I do not think I need comment on them at any length because they are clear in their drafting and make it apparent that the price to be obtained on the disposal of the industry or of shares in it must be treated as a most important consideration. Hon. Members will recall that I resisted the suggestion which appeared to be made from the benches opposite that the price should be the only consideration to be in the Act. As they will see from the terms of the first Amendment, it is made clear that other relevant matters shall be taken into account; that is to say, price is not the only consideration which must be taken into account in disposal.
    Hon. Members who compare the second Amendment with paragraph 34 of the White Paper will see that it carries out, almost word for word, the undertaking which the Minister gave during the Committee stage that we would seek to put into the Bill the words of the White Paper. When due allowance is made for the difference in phraseology between the words of a statute and the words of a White Paper, hon. Members will see that we have done our best to carry out almost literally what my right hon. Friend indicated.
    I put these Amendments forward not as indicating any change whatever in our approach to the problem, but as an attempt to meet apprehensions expressed by the Opposition which, though we believe them to be ill-founded, we recognise were sincerely held. We hope that by doing this we have made clear to hon. Members opposite what was always our intention. By the use of appropriate language, we are making it clear once again that we have every intention of getting a fair and proper price for the very valuable property of which we have to dispose.
    Sir Frank Soskice: The Government have certainly made an attempt to go some distance in the way we wanted them to go. However, in the view of my hon. Friends and

    1323
    myself, they have not gone nearly far enough. When we put down the Amendments to the Clause which were discussed in the Committee stage, what we were most anxious to secure was that there should be an objective test. We wanted to make certain, for example, that the compensation values which were paid when the securities were taken over would be, as far as possible, reflected in the prices actually obtained when the securities are sold.
    What the Government have done is to provide that the Agency is to secure that a financially adequate consideration is obtained upon the disposal of assets. That is going part of the way. It is an absolute obligation so far as it goes, but the anxiety that we have always felt is that unless the Clause contains specific obligations to measure the consideration which is obtained by reference to certain tests, it may well turn out that when there have rolled by the long years which must elapse before the securities and assets are finally disposed of, if they are ever finally disposed of, there may be a great void between the price which should be obtained if a really fair value is got in the price which is in fact turned into the coffers of the State. That is our anxiety and, looking at the Government's Amendment, we still say that there is absolutely no objective test by reference to which the consideration is to be measured.
    When we were formulating our Amendments for the Committee stage, we sought to find what objective test could be provided. The obvious objective test is that of the compensation values actually paid. We put down an Amendment—it appears again upon the Order Paper, but I understand that it has not been selected—making the compensation values one of those tests, adjusted upwards or downwards by reference to any subsequent change in the capital structure of the company concerned. That was a test which one could measure, as it were, in actual concrete figures. One would be able to say with reference to the sale of any securities that if what was obtained upon their sale fell far below the compensation value paid, obviously the consideration was an inadequate one and could not, within the scope of the Act, be accepted. That, we think, really is an essential safeguard.
    1324
    The Government, when that Amendment was put forward, raised the usual technical and administrative difficulties. They said that this, that or the other would be an obstacle which they could not see their way to get round. It may, no doubt, be the case that there are considerations which have to be borne in mind in applying such an objective test as we have suggested, but I cannot believe that those considerations, if there were really good will in the matter, and the Government really wanted to ensure a safeguard such as we think is necessary, could not have been surmounted.
    Nothing, in fact, has been done to do that. All that has been done is to place an obligation upon the Holding and Realisation Agency to see that the financial consideration is adequate. Of course, that begs the whole question. The question is what in that context we mean by adequate. It may well turn out that the Agency can get only a fifth or a third of what they really ought to have. If that is the best price that can be obtained in the circumstances, it will be argued on their behalf by the Government that that is an adequate consideration because it is the only consideration that in the circumstances could be obtained. If that is the argument, and if that is how the business is to be done, these securities are virtually going to be given away—given away in the sense that they are being parted with for nothing like what was paid for them and nothing like what should be in fact obtained on their disposal.
    In these circumstances, an Amendment has been put down. Although, as I say quite frankly, the Government have made an attempt to meet us, it does not seem to us on this side of the House to go anything like far enough. It still leaves the matter wholly in the realm of speculation. It depends on what the circumstances are at the time when the securities are sold whether we can say that the consideration obtained is financially adequate. It may be said to be financially adequate if it is the best consideration that can be obtained. What we want to say is, "If you cannot get the price they are really worth, do not sell them at all. The public should retain them, unless what they are really worth can in fact be obtained." The Agency may say, "We have done our best. We cannot obtain more than this.

    1325
    Therefore this is, in fact, the adequate price."
    The wording of the Government's Amendment is hopelessly ambiguous. It leaves a hundred different methods of getting round the matter, and we think the Government's proposals really do not meet the point we have made. We cannot be content with the Minister's second Amendment. The Amendment in our own form, perhaps, is in words not the most felicitously chosen, but in words which we think best express our purpose, and those words are again designed to reintroduce what I have earlier described as the objective test. We have said, "You are selling securities, and you should try as far as you can to obtain the actual compensation value paid." We have put forward an Amendment that in selling publicly-owned assets we should take into account the sale price, what was paid for those assets, as a measure of the actual price of the compensation paid for the securities which represent those assets. We think really that an Amendment on these lines is an indispensable prerequisite in any safeguard for the public.
    You have not actually called that Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I thought it might be convenient if I simply adumbrated the purpose of that Amendment, as you may well think it right to call it later on. It is with the purpose of indicating what that Amendment does that I have argued that the Government's proposals fall far short of the minimum requirement that publicly-owned assets disposed of by the Agency shall not be thrown away or given away. For these reasons, although the Government have gone some way to meet us, I cannot pretend that the Government's proposals are anything like adequate to achieve the purpose that ought to be achieved in this particular context.
    Mr. Spencer Summers: I think it is proper to point out one or two matters here to which it is rather difficult to find a solution. As I understand it, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side are, in fact, saying that any sale of these assets below the compensation price is one that ought not to be made because it would involve the State in loss.
    Sir F. Soskice: Adjusted upwards or downwards by reference to any change
    1326
    in the capital structure of the company in which the securities are held.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Summers: All right. That does not in the least vitiate the point I was going to make. When these assets were bought they were not paid for at their true worth. They were paid for on Stock Exchange values, which does not necessarily imply the same thing at all. [Interruption.] What I have said I think is quite accurate. Stock Exchange values were used to assess them.
    Sir F. Soskice: Certainly. I entirely agree, and the Opposition, as they then were—the present Government—complained that those values were far too low. What we are saying is that the minimum low level value should be those Stock Exchange values. Surely, therefore, we are not being unreasonable in the test we seek to impose.
    Mr. Summers: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to make my point. His comment has no bearing whatever on it. The Government at that time took over those assets on Stock Exchange values, and in seeking to judge what is a fair price for the sale of them he is deliberately attempting to exclude the changes in market conditions which have occurred since them. He is saying there should be regard to any changes in the capital structure—perhaps, even in undistributed profits—and so forth that may have occurred since then, but he is deliberately seeking to exclude the very important fact which must be taken into account, namely, the change in the stock market owing to the rise in the cost of money which has occurred since that time.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the second Government Amendment, he will see that it provides for regard being had to the monetary and market conditions prevailing at the time of sale. The Amendment to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred just now does not seek to delete those words but to add to them.
    Mr. Summers: What I am dealing with is the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He made it quite clear that he was seeking a yardstick, and it was the

    1327
    absence of a yardstick by which the fairness of the price could be measured which was the gravamen of his complaint.
    Sir F. Soskice Sir F. Soskice rose——
    Mr. Summers: I really must be allowed to make this point. I hardly get a sentence out but some hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite tries to interrupt me. I must go on, for we have not all that much time. As I have said on earlier occasions in these debates, the Holding and Realisation Agency, charged with the duty of realising those assets, should get the best price they can get. What I think is quite wrong is to assume that no regard can be paid to the change in the situation arising out of the increased value of money.
    There is one other point that, I think, has not been alluded to but which, I think, it is important should be apparent. There are only two ways really by which the State can avoid loss in the sale of these assets. One is by allowing the price of the Iron and Steel Stock to be at its face value rather than at its market value if it is offered as tender for the sale of the assets. That would be one way. There are objections, which I do not propose to elaborate at this moment, to that course, but, at any rate, that would be one way by which loss to the State could be eliminated. It would greatly facilitate the transactions.
    The other way is one which I foresee playing a prominent part in this business, namely, the issuing of shares from the undistributed profits of the companies to the Agency in order that they may be able to sell them for cash to the public subsequently, and so bridge the gap between the value of the shares when this industry was bought by the State and the comparable value of the shares prevailing when the State comes to sell them. The consequence of that will be that the capital in the industry will be deliberately deflated and interest paid on such shares in perpetuity in consequence of that method of attempting to eliminate the loss. It may well have far-reaching consequences in the long run. Every effort must be made to get as near to the compensation price as is reasonable, but I think that in the methods and decisions
    1328
    taken by those charged with this responsibility regard must be paid to the changes consequent upon the altered value of money.
    Mr. Albu: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) has drawn attention to one of the great defects of introducing this Bill at this time. He is, in fact, saying—as was said in the "Investors' Chronicle" this week—that it may well be difficult to find buyers for these securities unless, previous to that, the securities have been re-arranged in companies and higher dividends have already been paid out. It seems to me to indicate quite clearly that, if the Agency proceeds with haste in this matter, it must inevitably proceed on the basis of very much higher capital charges than the industry is bearing at the present time.
    Mr. Summers: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to misrepresent me. I have not seen the article to which he refers, but the paraphrase of it which he gave seemed to me extremely different from what I have just said.
    Mr. Albu: I think it was very similar to what the hon. Gentleman was trying to say. He referred to the changed market conditions and the higher rates of interest on money. These higher rates of interest on money have been reflected recently in changes in market quotations. Dividends have been rising, and stock values have been rising as a consequence. As the hon. Gentleman does not seem to agree with me, perhaps I could quote the article:
    "Admittedly, market prices now are slightly higher than they were in October, 1948 … but one of the principal reasons for this apparent steadiness has been the substantial increase of around 20 per cent. in dividends."
    This seems to me to be one of the difficulties. We are very anxious that the Agency shall not be in too much of a hurry to sell the securities back into private hands at a time when they may have to do it under market conditions which are not very favourable.
    The difficulty about discussing the whole question of the sale of these securities or the assets is that we do not know in what way the Agency will go about its business. Nor is it at all clear who the possible customers will be. We do not know whether there will be very simple transactions between the Agency and one or two large investors, or

    1329
    whether the Agency will reconstruct the capital structure of the companies and then slowly try to sell them off on the market. What we are trying to safeguard is that the capital sum which the Agency shall receive for these securities shall not be less than the sum the State paid for them, and at the same time we are anxious to ensure that this should not be achieved by the method of issuing or promising to issue, in the meantime, very much higher dividends.
    Mr. Summers: Will the hon. Gentleman answer one relatively simple question? Why should the State be regarded as the only stockholder who shall be immune from changes in the value of shares on the stock market?
    Mr. Albu: That depends on the attitude one takes of the industry we are discussing. We take a very different attitude, of course, and one of the advantages of the financing of the industry under the existing Act has been that a certain amount of the financing has been internally within the industry.
    Mr. Summers: That does not answer my question.
    Mr. Albu: No, but nevertheless—[Interruption.] Well, we on this side were entirely opposed to the raising of the rates of interest, especially for substantial and basic capital investment, and we remain so. We have no desire to see the very necessary expansion of the industry taking place in future under what may be very adverse financial conditions.
    The point I am trying to make in support of what my right hon. and learned Friend said is that it is not only a question of ensuring that the sum paid for the capital assets or the securities shall be not less than that which was paid by the State when they were nationalised, but that the Agency shall not be in too much of a hurry to sell off securities under what may be adverse financial conditions which may exist at present. I believe that if they take their time over this—and I hope it is an awfully long time—they will probably find that they will obtain much better prices for them.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) introduced a new and interesting point into these discussions, but
    1330
    I am not sure that it was a valid point, and for that reason I am not sure that his question to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) was a valid one. As I understood it, the point the hon. Gentleman was making was this: "You cannot really compare conditions today with conditions at the time the take-over price was based"—that is, the autumn of 1948—" because of the big changes which have come over stock markets generally." In his speech and in his question to my hon. Friend he was all the time assuming that, as a result of the changes in the value of money and other factors, the prices of shares on the Stock Exchange had generally gone down since 1948.
    Mr. Summers: They have.
    Mr. Jenkins: That is not true. The index of industrial ordinary shares is, in fact, two points higher than it was in the autumn of 1948, on which the takeover prices were based. I therefore suggest that his new argument and his question to my hon. Friend were entirely invalid.
    Mr. Summers: We may differ on the main point, but surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that those shares on which interest is virtually paid, be they Government stock or industrial stock, must inevitably fall in value with the increase in the cost of money.
    Mr. Jenkins: One would certainly agree that if the long-term rate of interest goes up from 3½ per cent. to 4½ per cent. gilt-edged stock will fall in value, but the point is that the index of industrial ordinary shares, which takes into account a great number of factors, and which is really the comparable thing, has gone up and not down. Certainly the position on which we based the take-over price in 1948 was the value of industrial ordinary shares—industrial shares in the steel industry—at a date in 1948. Since 1948 the value of most industrial securities has risen. Therefore, it would surely be reasonable to expect it to be possible for the steel industry to be sold off at a price not less than that which was paid in 1948.
    That is the burden of the case we put in Committee, and which we are now putting to the Financial Secretary. While I certainly recognise that in this Amendment he has gone some way to meet us, I am sorry that he did not go a little further, and in particular that he could

    1331
    not accept what we were asking for in our Amendment in Committee. That was a Clause based on 1949 values. He could have inserted in the Amendment he has moved a provision that the 1949 values ought at the very least to be one of the considerations to be taken into account in determining what a reasonable price should be.
    I think that we are missing a great opportunity to carry out a very interesting exercise here. There has always been a great dispute between the two sides of the House on the various nationalisation Measures as to what is a fair take-over price, and in the days of the Labour Government different methods were used for different industries. The Opposition of that day disliked, on the whole, the Stock Exchange valuation method more than they disliked any other, and claimed that it was an impossible method.
    Although there are many obvious disadvantages to nationalising an industry in 1949 and de-nationalising it in 1953, one of the very few advantages of the Government presenting its accounts in the way we want them presented is that it would enable us to get near an objective test of what is fair compensation. We shall be both buying and selling the industry within a relatively short time, and we shall, therefore, be able to test the take-over price against the price at which the public are willing to take the industry back in the fairly near future.
    5.30 p.m.
    The Government seem to be determined not to allow that comparison to be made, so far as they possibly can. I think that it would be extremely interesting if we could make these comparisons between the price paid in 1949 and the price which it proves possible to obtain for comparable securities under these conditions.
    I think that from that point of view and from the point of view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) of having some sort of guarantee that this industry is not sold off at prices which are extremely unfair to the public, at the very least there ought to be in this Amendment a provision that the 1949 price should be taken into account as one of the considerations in determining what is a reasonable price.
    Mr. Frederick Mulley: I want to refer to the fallacy which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) tried to put across the House. He said quite rightly, because it is beyond dispute, that the value of money today is less than it was at the time of the take-over of this industry. If it is proposed to hand back the capital assets which are today worth more because of the fall in the value of money than in 1948, surely his argument was addressed to the point that the 1949 valuations should be increased by the percentage by which money had fallen as the floor below which the securities should not be sold. His argument about the fall in the value of money as compared with the assets of the industry is surely in support of our contention that the 1949 valuation should be the absolute minimum.
    I think that the Financial Secretary ought to face up to the question that if the Government do not insert in the Bill, in some way, regard for the 1949 value, we must assume from their refusal to do so that the Minister and the Government today take the view—very different from that of 1949—that, in fact, the industry was bought at too high a price. Surely their refusal now to make this concession for which we ask can only mean that they think that the price at which we bought the industry in 1949 was too high.
    I think that the Financial Secretary—whose prestige in the country and in his own party has already increased and is going further to increase—should say that he thinks that a mistake was made in 1949 and too much compensation was paid. If he would do that, it would be of great interest to us, especially when we come to look at this industry again, as we shall in the future.
    The final point which I want to put to the Financial Secretary—and this is gratuitous advice which I venture to suggest—is that when he meets the criticism which we hear from the benches opposite about the need to economise on the use of the taxpayers' money, and the great difficulty with which the Government are faced in connection with increasing expenditure, and so on, this is a field in which the taxpayers' money can be safeguarded, and he can do that by seeing that a very fair price is received in respect of such securities as the Agency sell.
    Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: I want to intervene to add my word of praise to the Financial Secretary from this side of the House. He is the only Member of the House who can successfully insert 10 parenthetical clauses in one sentence to emerge triumphant with his final predicate successfully linked to his original subject. But he has rather overreached himself, I suggest, in an argument which he made, first, in Committee and, secondly, on this Report stage.
    He has twice told us, with an air almost of injured innocence, that we ought not to expect the Treasury as custodians of the nation's finances to be prepared to sell anything at a price lower than that which they might expect to get in the course of normal financial transactions. He may be right, but, frankly, this is not a financial transaction; it is a political transaction. It is an act of faith on the part of the Conservative Party.
    It is part of their general belief that the efficacy and efficiency of this industry will, on balance, be greater in private than in public hands. If they believe that, we can envisage circumstances in which normal financial criteria will not apply at all. This, therefore, is not an issue concerning normal finance, it is a political act of the first magnitude to which different criteria apply. In those circumstances, we are quite convinced that the Treasury might well, in order to justify the reams of speeches in HANSARD and the thousands of speeches made in the country by hon. Members opposite, be prepared to take a loss on the purely financial transaction in order to live up in some degree to their political faith.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I reply with the leave of the House, which I ask to be given on my undertaking to keep my pronouncements down to the minimum? As I understand the debate which took place on the Amendment which I moved a few minutes ago, the Amendment has, in general, been considered acceptable. The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), I think, looked the gift horse in the mouth with a view to looking even further down its throat. That is to say, he would rather that we had gone a little further.
    The argument which he adduced, and which one or two of his hon. Friends adduced, was almost entirely centred on whether we should not put into the Bill
    1334
    what he described as the objective test of linking the compensation values to some extent with the sale prices. That is an issue which arises on the Amendment to our Amendment in the name of right hon. Gentleman opposite, but as it was an issue which was discussed on my Amendment I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I tried to deal with it now.
    We start, I think, on the basis that our objectives are the same. We want, while paying due regard to all the major considerations—the efficiency of the industry, leaving it in good shape, and so on—at the same time to secure, consistently with these considerations, a fair price for the taxpayer.
    Therefore, the really practical question which the House has to decide is whether, aye or no, we are more likely to do so if we bring in, as the Opposition suggest, the test of compensation values or if we do not. If we were to write into the Bill either the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes, although he proposed them with very becoming modesty as to their effect, or some similar words which bring in compensation levels as a test, the advice which I am bound to offer to the House is that we should get a less good price than if we left them out. May I explain that argument in a few words.
    If we put into the Bill for all to see and in particular for all prospective or potential purchasers to see that this is, in the words of the Amendment, a "material factor" to be taken into account, that must suggest that the Agency ought to be satisfied if it gets the compensation value. That will be a point, which let me tell the House at once, prospective buyers will not hesitate to take. They will say, "We are offering you the equivalent of the compensation value. In your own Act the compensation value is set as a proper figure to accept. You ought, therefore, to accept that figure." That will be the argument. I must advise the House that the object, which we all want to see achieved, of getting a fair and proper price for what we have all described as this "valuable piece of property," would be prejudiced by putting this test into the Bill and, therefore, this argument into the mouths of those with whom we may have to negotiate purchases.

    1335
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) both raised the question whether the compensation value was too high or too low. I am bound to express the opinion that in many cases, at any rate, it was too low. That view, of course, reinforces from my point of view the difficulties and the dangers that I see in adopting compensation value as a test to be put into the Bill; because if, as I and many of my hon. Friends think, those values were too low, we would be giving an absolute hostage to fortune in negotiation by putting that, in many cases, too low figure into the Bill.
    Mr. Mulley: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise also that the Agency will have the option of not selling? The Financial Secretary talks about people refusing to buy if this term is included in the Bill. If the Agency cannot find a purchaser at a price which they think is adequate for the industry, surely they are under no obligation to sell.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I follow that argument, but I thought that although hon. Members opposite do not in any way like the principle of the Bill, we were discussing it at this stage on the basis of making it as effective for its purpose as possible. And one of the ways of making it as effective for its job as possible is, surely, to see that it is so drafted as to give a fair chance of obtaining the best price in negotiation.
    I fully recognise that hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to see this principle defeated. The House has argued that matter, and may do so again, but at this stage what we are concerned with is to to make it as good a Bill as possible. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the argument he has just adduced did not apply, because he seems to be admitting my argument that the price we should be getting with this condition in the Bill would be less good than if it were out. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is conceding the whole case I have been trying to make——
    Mr. Mulley Mr. Mulley indicated dissent.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —and which, incidentally, I have made without any parenthesis whatever. Therefore, I remain not only unconvinced of the merits, but convinced of the dangers, of the proposal made from the benches opposite on this point of view.
    However we may argue at this stage about the price that may be obtained, these transactions will be subject to approval by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore, of course, my right hon. Friend is responsible to the House. I should have thought that as Parliamentarians all hon. Members might agree that far more effective than what has been proposed is the sanction of ultimate responsibility to Parliament.
    If hon. Members are right, and if, as has again been suggested, though rather half-heartedly, we sought to dispose of valuable national property at an inadequate price, the House would lack neither the means nor, I hope, the will to hold my right hon. Friend responsible for such a dereliction of duty.
    Mr. Mitchison: I understand the hon. Gentleman with admirable consistency to take the same view that he took in opposition: that, generally speaking, the compensation paid was too little. In those circumstances, can he on behalf of the Treasury give any sort of undertaking, however qualified, that the price accepted for those securities will not be below the compensation paid?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I said, as the hon. and learned Member who is always accurate in these things will bear me out, that in many cases it was too low—that, I am sure, is the fact. There are also many factors that have changed, although I do not want to go again over the Commitee stage debate; there are the companies that have come up, and there are those that have gone down. The hon. and learned Member will, I think, acknowledge that it has throughout been my argument that the compensation value is largely an irrelevancy to this issue. Accepting that view, quite obviously I cannot accept the hon. and learned Member's proposal, with its implication that the compensation values have relevance.
    5.45 p.m.
    Sir F. Soskice: With the permission of the House, I should like to add a few words to the debate on this point in order to bring it, I hope, to a close. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that he felt bound to offer certain advice to the House. By that, I suppose he meant that that was the opinion that he held. I do not know whether he meant that he was reluctant to offer that advice. It is the advice that he offered to the House when we discussed this matter on the Committee stage, and it seems to me to be the most fallacious argument.
    The argument, as I understand it, is that if the Agency are not to be allowed to sell below compensation values, they will never get a penny more. That is the most obvious non sequitur——
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Mr. Boyd-Carpenter indicated dissent.
    Sir F. Soskice: That argument, as I understand it, is the most obvious non sequitur to which we have ever listened in the House.
    The Minister's own Amendment requires that the appropriate Department are to take into account all relevant circumstances—capital structure, reserves, trading prospects and all the rest; and that the Minister derives from an Amendment that we put on the Order Paper during the Committee stage. All those things have to be taken into account. All I can say is that, supposing there is a low level minimum of the compensation values, and either the Agency or the appropriate Department accept that low level minimum, they will be flying straight in the face of the Minister's Amendment. It certainly does not follow that because a low level minimum is put into the Bill, nothing will ever be obtained above it.
    I do not want again to go over the ground we have already traversed, both today and in earlier debates on this matter. We on this side feel very disappointed at the Government's attitude. and still more disappointed at the reasons for that attitude. The only reason that the Financial Secretary, in spite of his growing stature, which we are all glad to recognise, can find is that nothing would ever be obtained higher than the low-level minimum.
    1338
    That is completely incorrect reasoning. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that, and if the Agency or the Department agree to a sale at the low-level minimum, they really will be making a mockery of the responsibility which under the Bill, imperfectly drafted as it is, they are called upon to undertake.
    But there are other matters on the Order Paper which are of equal, if not greater, importance. Disappointed as we are, we feel that there would not be any advantage to be gained by further probing into this matter, and we on this side are content simply to indicate in the plainest terms our disapproval of the attitude which the Government have taken. Then, I hope, we may go on to discuss some of the more urgent matters which still remain.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I beg to move, in page 16, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    "and—
    Provided also that no sale or other disposal of any securities or other assets by the Agency the total consideration for which exceeds one million pounds shall be valid unless the Minister shall have previously signified his approval thereof; and his approval shall not be effective, until he shall have so signified it by a direction in that behalf to be given by a statutory instrument which shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament and shall not come into operation unless and until affirmed by a resolution of that House."
    The two objects of this quite plain Amendment are to see that when assets of this valuable industry are sold for sums in excess of £1 million, two things shall happen. First, the Minister will have to give his consent, which shall be expressed in the form of a Statutory Instrument; and, second, that Statutory Instrument shall be approved by an affirmative Resolution of the House. The main idea underlying these two objectives of our Amendment is that we should prevent the handing over of valuable assets, which may be worth many millions of pounds, to private hands and, maybe, to obnoxious hands, at prices and under conditions of which this House might very easily disapprove, either on grounds relating to the functions of the industry itself or on grounds relating to the wider national interest.
    I hope that the Financial Secretary, or whoever replies, will not take what

    1339
    I hope I may describe as a "great aunt-ly" attitude towards the House of Commons—the sort of attitude that a maidenly great aunt might take. Let him not say that Members of the House of Commons cannot possibly have the knowledge necessary to make well-found criticism about individual deals. After all, great aunts sometimes find that their great nieces and nephews know far more about the facts of life than they do themselves.
    In any case, even if individual hon. Members have no personal experience of the industry necessary to make well found criticism—which I must say a great many of them often have—they have sources of information open to them. There are all sorts of people, with or without axes to grind, who are only too willing to supply immense quantities of information. Hon. Members become adept in sorting out the good from the bad. If that were not so there would be no case at all for asking the opinion of the House on any major matter of public policy. So I hope we shall not hear that particular argument put forward.
    I know there is fear that in a matter of a commercial transaction such as all these disposals of assets must be that while the House is deliberating, or perhaps before it begins to deliberate, upon an affirmative Resolution which may be put forward by the Minister, the buyer might go off. The Financial Secretary said with some melodramatic effect that he feared that might happen. But, if the buyer did go off before the affirmative Resolution was passed, he would be subject, as any other breaker of a contract is subject, to the laws for breach of contract—[An HON. MEMBER: "He will not have a contract."] Of course he will have a contract. Can anyone imagine any sensible Agency taking no sort of deposit or making no agreement?
    The agreement would obviously be with the prospective buyer, and it would be that he should buy, subject to the affirmative Resolution of the House. If he refused to carry out his bargain for any other reason than that the affirmative Resolution was not forthcoming it would be a breach of contract.
    Mr. Arthur Colegate: Do I understand that the hon. and learned
    1340
    Member is proposing a one-sided contract by which the buyer cannot go off but the Government can?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I do not see why we should not make that sort of agreement, but it certainly is not what I suggested. I suggested that there would be an agreement which involves two sides. When there is an agreement between two people like that, if one goes off of course he can be caught in the net of breach of contract.
    When decisions of this magnitude are being considered we contend that Parliament should have an opportunity of expressing its view and, making inquiry and offering criticism and, if necessary, withholding consent. All these things should be: and someone should have the responsibility of coming to the House and justifying the proposed deal. We ask who better could there be to come forward and justify the proposed deal before this House than the Minister, who has special responsibility for, and knowledge of, the iron and steel industry, namely, the Minister of Supply. He should justify to the House any deal of this magnitude that there may be.
    Today again the Financial Secretary has referred to his desire to avoid any splitting of responsibility as between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister or the Board. Like him, we on this side of the House would very much regret to see a division of responsibility. We would not like to see the national interest falling between two stools—the hard, high stool of the Treasury and the more ample and, let us hope, comfortable, although similar piece of furniture in the Ministry of Supply. We say that the minute any prospective deal exceeds £1 million in value the responsibility should be put firmly on the Minister of Supply. There is no question of division of responsibility there. It is on one Minister only. We put forward that argument very strongly.
    I sum up in this way. The larger any of these deals becomes the greater, inside that deal, will become the content of non-financial consideration. If some very tiny works are disposed of there cannot possibly be some of these nonfinancial effects or detriments which might be the case if an immense works or combine were sold. We say that the larger the deal the greater the non-financial content of the national interest involved in

    1341
    that deal, therefore, the less the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have to deal with it, and the more the Minister, whose main responsibility this industry is, should have control and should have to give his consent and have to come to this House to justify the giving of that consent.
    Mr. Jack Jones: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Amendment, I think the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) will agree, is very much the same as one moved during the Committee stage, except that the one moved in Committee had a figure of £100,000 and in this one hon. Members opposite have "raised the ante" and inserted £1 million. I am afraid that the higher figure does not really diminish the inevitable difficulties of the proposal.
    In the first place, it really is contrary to the normal principles adopted when Ministers of the Crown have to make contracts, whether for the acquisition or the disposal of property, to insist on procedure of this sort. It is a very familiar aspect of our public life in these days that it falls to Ministers in any Government to enter into very large-scale transactions both by way of purchase and of sale. Indeed, the late Administration went out of their way in the Minister of Food (Financial Powers) Act, 1949, to authorise the Minister of Food to make long-term contracts without Parliamentary approval.
    The principle has been generally accepted under a variety of Governments in connection with any of these transactions of either sort which Ministers have to undertake to give them the utmost freedom in making them, but then to hold them to account if they make a bad one. That is the principle of Parliamentary responsibility—to allow the Ministers freedom to do their duty as they see it and then hold them responsible if they make a mess of it. I suggest that that is the right way to handle transactions of this sort, and that the altering of the figure from £100,000, as proposed in Committee, to £1 million now, does not in any degree diminish the soundness of that principle. Nor, equally, does it diminish the extent to which this proposal departs from precedents of recent years.
    1342
    Of course, there is the fact that in any case securities of steel companies will be disposed of by the process of public issue on offer for sale. If the procedure outlined here were to be carried out it would be very difficult indeed to make such issues. Hon. Gentlemen who are familiar with the procedure will realise that when these issues have to be made terms have to be settled in the light of the market conditions existing, sometimes on quite a short-term basis. If the precise terms of an issue had to be embodied in a statute and then subjected to the affirmative Resolution procedure it might very well be that conditions would have changed for the better or for the worse before it was possible to effect the issue.
    6.0 p.m.
    There is the further difficulty that under the affirmative procedure no sales could be made in the Parliamentary Recess. An affirmative Resolution must be approved before a sale could take place, and that would impose upon the Agency the considerable difficulty of there being a number of months when it would be impossible to arrange a sale. That does not seem to carry any advantage. We are once again back to the principle which I have previously urged upon the House, that the Agency shall dispose of the companies and of their shares in the best possible way. We seem to be violating that principle if we impose such a handicap upon them.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: If that is still the attitude of the Government—I thought they would stick about the Recess point—would they be prepared to accept the negative Resolution procedure?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The difficulties of the negative Resolution procedure, though obviously smaller, are still very serious. It would presumably render necessary the laying of a Statutory Instrument, and transactions would take place either before the Resolution was framed in each case, in which case the whole procedure would be nugatory, or else the transactions would have to be held up while time was given to pray against the Statutory Instrument.
    Mr. Mitchison: May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that

    1343
    his point about the Recess is quite reasonably met by a Government Amendment which appears later on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But not in the Amendment that we are discussing and which, I take it, hon. Gentlemen opposite are urging upon us. It is clear that these transactions could not take place unless and until there had been an affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons, and that could not come into operation during the Recess.
    The final point, although it is a lesser one, is that this Amendment would introduce the Minister of Supply into that field of responsibility which is allotted under the Bill to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House may have become almost weary of hearing it repeated that the general scheme of the Bill has been to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer responsible for the Agency and the Minister of Supply generally responsible for the Board and supervision of the industry. The Amendment, as the hon. Member for Brigg went out of his way to point out, brings the Minister of Supply into the first area, and, therefore, confuses the issue of the general chain of responsibility.
    The Amendment seeks to introduce a rather novel procedure for this sort of transaction. It would make disposal at a fair price more difficult and would introduce difficulties if negotiations had to be suspended for the affirmative Resolution procedure. It would be quite contrary to recent precedent, which is that of leaving a Minister of the Crown to be responsible for a transaction and of having to answer for it afterwards. By introducing the figure £1 million the Amendment would certainly reduce the number of transactions which the procedure would otherwise affect, but it would still be harmful to the disposal of these assets at a proper price, and I regret to say that I must resist it.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: We remain unconvinced. I am not going to repeat the reasons why we remain unconvinced. They have been admirably stated by my hon. Friends today and on a previous occasion. We agree that this Amendment
    1344
    is novel, but we say that the novel procedure is justified by novel circumstances. Never before have a Government proposed to sell £240 million worth of assets in conditions which will be almost those of a forced sale. The Government are determined to sell these assets. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that we have accepted the principle that these assets shall be disposed of, but we have a strong feeling that the Government are determined to sell them at the best price they can get, and that if they cannot get a good price it will be a bad price; but disposed of they must be.
    This is a political decision to sell the publicly-owned iron and steel industry back to private owners at whatever price can be obtained, and we believe that very often, because the buyers know that, a bad price will be obtained. When the Government are faced with the option of no sale or sale at a bad price I do not believe they will accept the alternative of no sale. They will then say: "We have to sell at a bad price." Because of our fears that this will take place we ask that Parliament should keep an eye on the disposal of these assets and shall see to it that public property shall not be sold at substantially below its true value.
    If there is any big sale to take place—we suggest a minimum figure of £1 million, but if the Government say: "We accept the principle, if it is £2 million" we will agree—for an enormous sale of property, assets or securities under those special conditions the matter should be reported first to the Minister, and then to Parliament. If Parliament says, "It's O.K." then it is O.K. We believe that in many cases it will not be O.K. We believe that the Bill will permit sales at rotten prices and that Parliament will not be consulted.
    We had intended dividing the House upon the Amendment, because we think it is a matter of first-class principle, but time presses and other Amendments on the Paper, some put there by the Government and some by us, await us. Only because of time we do not divide the House. We are very sorry indeed, although not surprised, that the Government have refused to accept the Amendment, which is put forward for the protection of the public in entirely new and unprecedented circumstances. We think that our Amendment is essential if public

    1345
    assets are not to be given away or sold at prices well below the value which the public ought to receive for them.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 16, line 27, at the end, to insert:
    (5) Before appointing a person to be a member of the Agency, the Treasury shall satisfy themselves that that person has no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the exercise or performance by him of his functions as a member of the Agency and the Treasury shall also satisfy themselves from time to time with respect to every member of the Agency that he has no such interest; and any person who is, or whom the Treasury propose to appoint and who has consented to be, a member of the Agency shall, whenever requested by the Treasury so to do, furnish to them such information as the Treasury consider necessary for the performance by them of their duties under this subsection.
    Hon. Members may recall that during the Committee stage, in the course of a debate upon an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), I undertook to see whether it was possible to produce at this stage a form of words to meet the intentions of that Amendment. I indicated that I could give no definite undertaking, as I had doubts whether it would be possible to frame a suitable Amendment.
    I claim to be a little better than my word in being able to bring this Amendment forward now. Hon. Members will appreciate that it is always a difficult and delicate question to secure that in appointments involving public responsibility the persons appointed are free from conflict between their private interests and their official duties, and that they are not only so free but are obviously known and seen to be so free.
    My inquiries into the matter resulted in finding this form of words which I think will commend themselves, to hon. Members opposite at any rate, by reason of the fact that they are taken from Section 1 (6) of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949. Whether my hon. Friends will be similarly impressed by their parentage, I would not like to say. However, they are the words then thought appropriate for achieving that purpose and I think they are apt for that purpose. They make the duty of my right hon. Friend in making these appointments quite clear in the statute, and I hope they will be
    1346
    taken as a genuine attempt to do a little better than I promised.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: In our view, the Amendment fully carries out the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman gave in Committee and we thank him and the Government for it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 18.—(POWERS OF AGENCY IN RESPECT OF SECURITIES AND COMPANIES.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 17, line 36, at end, insert:
    (6) The appropriate department shall, in exercising their powers under the last preceding subsection, have regard to the obligation of the Agency under the last preceding section to secure an adequate consideration for the assets disposed of in the discharge of their duty under that section; and, in deciding what would be an adequate consideration for any securities or other assets so disposed of, the appropriate department shall take all material factors into account including the physical assets, capital structure, reserves and trading prospects of the company in question, and the monetary and market conditions prevailing at the time of sale.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "including," to insert:
    "the value of such securities or, as the case may be, of securities relating to such other assets, as in either case determined under and in pursuance of the provisions of Part II of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949."
    The principle of this Amendment has been discussed already. We stand by it, but we do not propose to divide the House on it.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 17, line 41, at the end, to insert:
    "and, if the Board inform the Agency that the proposal would seriously prejudice the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products, the Agency shall inform the appropriate department of the Board's opinion and shall not proceed with the proposal unless the appropriate department thereafter direct them so to do; and the department shall only give such a direction as aforesaid if they have previously laid before each House of Parliament a statement setting out the proposal, the opinion of the Board and

    1347
    any other relevant circumstances, and a period of fourteen days has elapsed since the date on which the statement was laid.
    In reckoning the said period of fourteen days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
    This Amendment has been put down as the result of an undertaking which I gave during the debate in Committee on an Amendment somewhat similar to the one we discussed earlier this afternoon regarding the relationship between the Board and the Agency. During that debate the main concern showed on the benches opposite in this connection was the possibility that the views of the Board might be ignored, or arbitrarily overruled, on questions of regrouping. I appreciated the apprehensions felt and suggested to the Committee that a procedure such as is outlined in this Amendment might meet those apprehensions.
    I think hon. Members will agree that the words of the Amendment are very close to the terms of the undertaking which I gave to the Committee. They provide for a procedure which will secure that in these matters the Board is not over-ruled without the House being both fully aware of the matter and having time, if it so wishes, to hold the Minister to account.
    Mr. Jack Jones: We have no objection to this Amendment, which meets substantially what we had in mind when we were in Committee, and we express our thanks to the hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 19.—(OTHER FINANCIAL POWERS OF AGENCY.)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 18, line 4, to leave out "any of whose securities are held," and to insert:
    "whose securities are held to a substantial extent."
    This Amendment also arises out of a discussion during the Committee stage. The Bill provides that these advances may be made where any shares in the company are still held by the Agency. The point was taken in Committee that where the holding of the Agency was negligible, it was wrong to provide that finance from public sources should be available. While I indicated that we
    1348
    could not accept the view of the Opposition that these advances should be limited to cases in which the Agency retained the majority of the shares, I indicated that we might be able to go as far as to provide that they should be limited to cases where the Agency holds a substantial element.
    The Amendment is so drafted as to take into account both the absolute size of the holding of the Agency—a comparatively small holding in a large company may involve a considerable sum of money—and the proportion it represents to the total. It does not go as far as some hon. Members opposite would have liked, but it is an indication that we saw some force in their contention that, where the holdings were merely negligible, this power should not be given. It is perhaps a typical Parliamentary compromise between the different points of view, and I think it meets broadly the kind of considerations that hon. Members opposite had in mind.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I agree that the Amendment goes a little way to meet the arguments we advanced during the Committee stage. We had proposed to move the two Amendments on the Order Paper to line 4, namely, to leave out second "any," and insert "the majority," and after "securities," insert "carrying full voting rights" in the hope that the House would agree to meet us fully. However, again I must look at the clock and say that we are not able to do that. We would have liked much more time to discuss Amendments during both the Report and Committee stages of the Bill, but we have kept to our agreement to limit its consideration and as the House knows, this has meant refraining from moving many Amendments which we thought exceedingly important.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 22.—(ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS OF AGENCY AND FURNISHING OF INFORMATION.)
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 20, line 40, at the end, to insert:
    "any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one hundred and sixty-one of the Companies Act, 1948, by the Board of Trade."

    1349
    This Amendment follows the line of another one discussed earlier relating to the accounts of the Board, and I hope that the House will accept it.
    Mr. Jack Jones: We are willing to accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 28.—(ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS BY INJUNCTION.)
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, in page 25, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    (4) In any proceedings for an injunction restraining any person from charging prices for any products greater than those determined by the Board for those products under the said section seven, the court, if it is satisfied that the defendant has at any time charged for those products prices greater than those prescribed by the determination in question, may, whether or not it grants the injunction, order the defendant to pay to the Board such amount as may be agreed between the defendant and the plaintiff (whether the Board or the Minister), or as may be ascertained in such manner as may be directed by the court in accordance with rules of court, to represent the aggregate of the amounts by which the prices charged by the defendant for the products in question in all the transactions in which the determination in question was contravened by him exceeded the maximum prices prescribed by the determination.
    Any sums paid to the Board under any such order shall be treated by them as if they were sums paid by producers of the said products by way of contributions under a scheme made under section twelve of this Act.
    In the course of the discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" during the Committee stage, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) made some suggestions on this subject—although he had a little difficulty in making them—which we have considered very carefully. The effect of this Amendment will be to secure that when someone is brought before the court on an application for an injunction because the prices fixed by the Board have been exceeded, the court will have power, whether or not the injunction is granted, to order an inquiry to ascertain the amount of excess profit made on those products by the vendor in breach of the contractual stipulation implied by the Bill, and to order payment of that sum to the Board. There is also provision for avoiding the necessity of a reference of this character if the parties to the litigation
    1350
    can agree on a sum as being the excess profit.
    The result should be, and I hope will be, that when proceedings of this kind are brought, the person against whom they are brought will, in the end, make no profit whatsoever out of breaking his statutory undertakings to the Board. He will have to pay back all the excess prices which he has charged and may also find an injunction granted against him. In addition, he may find himself penalised by a substantial bill of costs, not only in relation to the proceedings for an injunction but also in relation to the inquiry to ascertain what are the excess profits. In those circumstances, the Amendment adds substantial deterrent against a breach of the Board's price-fixing powers, and I hope it will commend itself to the Committee.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the second "Board," to insert
    "a sum not less than such amount and not exceeding three times."
    The effect of my Amendment will be to allow the court not merely to order payment of the excess price but to order payment of up to three times the excess prices. It is quite a relief to get away from the atmosphere of haloes into a little bit of crime. We have been placing haloes round all the iron and steelmasters individually and, somewhat to my surprise, collectively. The Federation was given a little bit of a halo last night, tarnished though it was by the reference to the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) as a commissar, which shocked him into a complete silence which he has maintained ever since.
    Not all iron and steelmasters, and not even the beatified Federation, are always good. They had a rather bad history in the iron and steel trade about quite a number of things, and I have heard it said—of course I have no expert knowledge about these matters—that at times there has been quite a big black market in iron and steel and iron and steel products. I have understood that to mean much the same as the black market in other commodities—that is to say, making a bit of money by breaking a law and making it by selling something for a price higher than that at which it should be sold because it is rather scarce, and

    1351
    because one can find someone to enter into this illegal transaction.
    Both the proposed Amendment and my Amendment to it are concerned with the question of maximum prices. I suggest, first of all, that the injunction itself is a quite insufficient substitute for the criminal remedies which ought to be, not in place of it, but added as an alternative remedy. I shall not discuss the matter at length. As the Solicitor-General knows, this matter was discussed with a little heat in Committee, and I will not start that discussion again.
    We must assume that there will not be criminal proceedings, even as an alternative. The position is, therefore, that someone who has broken a quite definite requirement about maximum prices—a requirement put in the clearest terms in the Bill and put there in the national interest and for the benefit of the community—can be dealt with only by proceeding for an injunction; and if and when an injunction is granted, or even if it is not granted, the most that the court can do to him is to order him to repay what he has gained out of that illegality.
    That seems to me a scandalous state of affairs, and I should have thought that it would not frighten the black marketeer, big or small, in the least. It is a most admirable instance of "Heads I win and tails I certainly do not lose." If he wins, he gets away with it; he has made his illegal profit—for it is an illegal profit. If he loses, he is brought before the Chancery Court and the worst that can happen to him is to be ordered to pay back the illegal profit.
    If we were dealing with a community of saints, I suppose we should not need injunctions or penalties at all, but we are dealing with ordinary human beings and with companies run by ordinary human beings, and we have to provide for the man who breaks the law as well as for the man who keeps it. We do not say that everyone will break the law, but we have to have some effective sanctions behind these maximum prices. To suggest that we can do it all by an injunction reminds me of a famous quotation. It does not come from HANSARD but from a much better book. Dealing with a steelmaster by an injunction looks
    1352
    to me exactly like the old remedy, which I may paraphrase:
    "You may hunt him with thimbles, you may hunt him with care;
    You may pursue him with forks and hope;
    You may threaten his life with a railway share;
    You may charm him with smiles and soap."
    That is about the total value of an injunction in these circumstances. Of course, if he is not a Boojum and is a virtuous iron and steelmaster, no doubt it will be all right; but for the moment we are concerned with the bad Boojum in the iron and steel trade. There may be some; there have been some. Bringing such a man before the court and simply ordering him to pay back what are. in effect, illegal gains will not frighten him even a little bit.
    I may be told that the Chancery Court cannot do this sort of thing. Well, it was the Government who suggested that we can do it all by an injunction, and if they intend to do it that way. I must ask, "Why should this man, this hypothetical criminal, get off any cheaper than a man who has been smuggling goods into this country and who is made to pay three times the proper duty?" What is the moral distinction between the man who. under the Customs and Excise Act, has to pay up to three times the proper duty, and the man who has been making an illegal profit by selling above the legal maximum price and then is told to pay back only the amount which he has illegally made?
    I am not going to stress the point, but I can see no possible argument against some provision of this sort, and while I say quite frankly that I would have preferred a plain, straight, criminal penalty, as an alternative, at least let us give the court the power to put these additional damages on—for that is what they are called—by way of penalty.
    6.30 p.m.
    They have ways of dealing with defaulting trustees in the Chancery Court, and I understand they claim with some pride that when the criminal courts entirely failed to catch Mr. Bottomley, they caught him as a defaulting trustee more effectively than the criminal machinery could ever do. It must not be thought that I am saying that all iron

    1353
    and steelmasters are wicked. I am simply saying that in cases of this sort there must be some more effective sanction behind the price regulations—for that is what they are—than this bit of soap which the Government apparently think sufficient.
    Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has moved this Amendment with a moderate amount of heat, and I hope I shall be able to give him an answer which will satisfy him. First of all, I should like to make it clear to him—I am sure he appreciates it—that this procedure is not the procedure which is intended to deal with black marketeers because they are dealt with under the existing price control orders of the Defence Regulations. The Board's price control powers will apply solely to the producers affected by this Bill, so it will be seen that the question is within a narrow compass and a narrow field.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman puts forward the argument that the procedure of this Bill does not provide an effective sanction against the individuals who are deemed by this Bill to be in contractual relationship with the Board. He asks why should they get off any cheaper. The short answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that in most cases they will not, and I will explain that to him in this way. Under the Defence Regulations it is quite true that there is a maximum penalty of not less than three times the amount covered by the offences.
    When a person comes before the magistrates' court, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there may be a long list of transactions but, in fact, a prosecution is only taken in respect of a sample selection, and so the treble penalty is limited to the offences that are, in fact, proved. Therefore, under the treble penalty procedure all that the black marketeer has made may not be collected. It is a rough-and-ready guide. It may be that the sample of offences will be proved, and there is a treble penalty in respect of them.
    Under our procedure we are taking power to secure that, in fact, all that is made by the producer who disobeys the Board's determination on prices will be taken from him. He will lose the lot.
    Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Could there not, in addition, be power to impose a penalty?
    The Solicitor-General: I dealt with the question of criminal penalty in Committee, and, although the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering referred to it in his speech, I do not think I should repeat my observations upon it. We discussed the subject with some heat during the Committee stage.
    What I am saying here is that, while I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's desire that a person who does not obey the Board's determination as to prices should not get off any cheaper, in fact, under our proposals he certainly will not get off any cheaper. In our view, the sanction against such a person will be strengthened by this Amendment and should result in the person who disobeys the Board's determination not making any profit whatsoever out of his disobedience. He may also have to pay all the costs of an inquiry to ascertain what he has made. That, in itself, will be a fairly substantial penalty, and on top of that he may find the court granting an injunction against him. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not suggest for one moment that an injunction itself does not provide for pretty powerful enforcement measures.
    Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) did suggest in Committee, as, indeed, did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) that a person might get away with some profits by disobeying the Board, we have now stopped that hole completely, and we have got a method which ought to act as a very effective deterrent on any individual disobeying the Board. We should remember that he will have to pay in the end all the excess profit he has made, and that is a little bit worse than a prosecution under the Defence Regulations whereby, although he may pay three times the amount in relation to the offences on which he has been convicted, he may not, in fact, lose all that he has made.
    In addition, under our procedure he will have to pay the costs and he may have an injunction granted against him. We seek to give this power to grant an

    1355
    inquiry wherever the court thinks it proper to do so. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is not the case that under this procedure anyone who disobeys the Board will get off cheaper, but that by our Amendment we are effecting a considerable improvement in the Bill.
    Sir F. Soskice: I do not think that the argument to which we have listened is a satisfactory one at all. To begin with, the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks, so far as I can understand his argument, to draw a distinction between black market offences and the offence of charging more than the permitted amount under this Bill. What is the distinction in principle between them? I cannot conceive any difference in moral culpability in each of the types of transactions. Both are wrong courses of conduct.
    The distinction is probably that this particular type of transaction with which the Bill is now dealing will involve a larger gain to the malefactor than the ordinary black market transaction. Therefore, this type of transaction we are now considering is the worse of the two, and at least they should be put upon a par.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeds to say that the ill-gotten gains are to be taken from the individual. Does he not, as Solicitor-General, agree that there is all the distinction in the world between having a criminal decree registered against an individual and having something simply in the nature of a civil order? If the hon. and learned Gentleman goes to any citizen with the remotest self-respect and dignity and says to him, "Do you regard it as more serious to be condemned by a criminal court or to appear in a civil court?" he will say at once that it is far more serious to him, to his prospects and to the interests of those associated with him to be condemned in a criminal court.
    There is still a wide distinction in the law of this country between a criminal and a civil sanction. A person who is threatened with a civil sanction gets off far more lightly than a person threatened with a criminal sanction. The scales are wholly unevenly balanced. The person who has not to fear a criminal court gets off with a far less penalty than a person who has to fear a criminal conviction.
    1356
    The Solicitor-General says that in pounds, shillings and pence, although the black marketeer has to pay three times the amount of the benefit he gains, the offender against this Bill will, in the long run, pay more. I consider that a doubtful proposition. The Solicitor-General said a black marketeer had only to pay three times the amount of his benefit in a case proved against him. Equally, the offender against this Bill can only be called on to pay in the cases of over-charging proved against him. Both cases depend on proof.
    The Solicitor-General: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has fallen into error. Under the Defence Regulations the offender pays three times the amount in relation to each offence proved against him. That is to say, the penalty is limited to the number of charges preferred. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads our Amendment, he will see that once a breach of price determination is established—one breach—there can be an inquiry to ascertain in how many transactions an excessive price has been charged, and that the penalty is not limited by the amount proved in the first instance.
    Sir F. Soskice: I do not resile from what I said. The over-charger will only pay in those cases in which, after the inquiry has been held, he is proved to have transgressed. There is, in principle, no distinction whatever and only a slight distinction in fact.
    In the case of a black marketeer the prosecuting authority may select a number of transactions, and not make all the transactions in respect of which there has been black marketing the subject of a particular count in the indictment. That is the only distinction. In point of fact, in the case of serious black marketing a sufficient number of examples of wrong doing will be picked out and made the subject to a charge to bring home very fully to the malefactor the extent of his transgression.
    The real distinction is that the black marketeer will have a conviction registered against him in the criminal court whereas the over-charger will not. So far as pounds, shillings and pence are concerned. the black marketeer will pay more. He has to pay three times what he benefited, whereas the transgressor

    1357
    against this Bill pays the amount of his benefit.
    Why there should be this extraordinary tenderness shown to a person who may make a vast sum of money out of serious wrong doing really passes comprehension. It was only because we pressed the matter strenuously in what the hon. and learned Gentleman described as a heated controversy in our Committee discussions that he has even taken upon himself to require the over-charger to pay out the amount of his ill-gotten gains. But he boggles at going any further, and says that in no circumstances shall the over-charger pay more than that.
    For some reason or other the Solicitor-General has got it in his mind that he simply cannot use what is the obviously required necessary degree of firmness in this Bill to ensure that the intentions of the Government are carried out. He seems to be terrified of the person who over-charges. That person is no better than a black marketeer. In fact, he is a black marketeer, and one of the worst type. As the Solicitor-General said when moving the Amendment, he is ready deliberately to break the terms of the Bill.
    That would seem to us an absolutely inexcusable course of conduct but hardly, however, more inexcusable than the conduct of the Solicitor-General in viewing it so tenderly. The hon. and learned Gentleman is being completely pussy-footed about this and I hope even at this late stage he will realise that he has allowed himself to be put into a wholly inconsistent position. His position is utterly untenable.
    If he will think over what real reason he can have for singling out people who drive a coach and horses through this Bill, first, by not even asking them to pay back their ill-gotten gains, and, when they are made to do that, by saying we should not treat them as ordinary black marketeers, he will see that he must alter his ways. He still has an opportunity in another place to remedy the matter. I hope he will take it and rub out of this Bill something which is about as indefensible as the whole purpose of the Bill itself.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Robson Brown: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) inferred that there had been
    1358
    black market transactions carried out inside the steel trade. In fairness to the record of the steel-makers I would ask him if he knows of a single steel-maker who has been charged with being, and proved to be, a black marketeer at any time in any place.
    Mr. Mitchison: I did not claim to be an expert in these matters. I should expect to find some experts on the benches opposite rather than on this side of the House. But, in the light of all I have read and heard, I cannot believe that there is no substance in the widespread allegations of black marketing in iron and steel.
    Mr. Robson Brown: Would the hon. and learned Member accept my personal assurance that there has not been a single case at any time of a steel manufacturer being convicted of black marketeering? There have been a number in small firms on the fringe of the industry who were selling products three and four times removed from the steel industry. Their relationship with the industry is very doubtful, and we would be glad to be rid of them.
    Mr. J. E. S. Simon: I wish to thank my hon. and learned Friend for having met the point I raised. I am glad he resisted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for the reasons he gave, which seemed to be completely cogent and convincing. In addition, it would seem to be thoroughly objectionable that what is in the nature of a penalty or fine should, for the first time in recent years, be sent for trial by a judge of the Chancery Division sitting without a jury.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I cannot allow that encomium of the Solicitor-General to pass without criticism. I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said we would get back the ill-gotten gains of a person who overcharged. But that will not be imposing a penalty at all. It will merely force the person to pay back what he is not entitled to keep.
    This Clause is not effective unless there is put into it a penalty. It is no argument for the Solicitor-General to say that by this Clause we get all the money back and that that is better than a penalty.

    1359
    He can very simply achieve that end by saying that the Clause shall provide for all the money to be got back and for a penalty as well.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 25, line 41, to leave out from "exceeding," to the end of line 46, and to insert:
    "one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment:
    Provided that, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, the maximum fine shall be two hundred pounds."
    This Amendment is clear in its terms. We said during Committee stage that we would give further consideration to the precise amount of the penalties. We have come to the conclusion that the penalty for a first offence should be £100 and for the second offence it should be £200, with a liability to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. We have not made the term of imprisonment longer for the second offence because of the difficulty with regard to election for trial arising only after the first conviction.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 30.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS, REGULATIONS AND CONSENTS.)
    Amendment made: In page 27, line 3, leave out "each," and insert "either."—[Mr. Sandys.]

    First Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, ETC.)
    Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 33, line 11, after "day," to insert:
    "and any cause of action against a company arising under subsection (2) of that section shall be deemed for the purposes of paragraph 7 of this Schedule to have arisen before that day and the said paragraph (including sub-paragraph (3) thereof) shall apply accordingly."
    This Amendment corrects a small omission in paragraph 10 of the Schedule. The paragraph refers to Section 14 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, which cancelled certain loan agreements and gave the lenders new and different rights which were statutory rights. To make it clear in that paragraph and in paragraph 7 that the guarantee of the
    1360
    Agency, which is continued by paragraph 7, extends to agreements covered by Section 14. I move this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Second Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO IRON AND STEEL BOARD AND IRON AND STEEL HOLDING AND REALISATION AGENCY.)
    Amendments made: In page 36, line 5, at beginning, insert:
    (1) Any person whom the Minister proposes to appoint, and who has consented to be, a member of the Board, shall before his appointment disclose to the Minister and, if he is appointed, shall as soon as possible disclose to the Board any financial or other interest held by him in any undertaking of an iron and steel producer or in any other business in which the use of iron and steel products for manufacturing purposes or the merchanting of those products or any raw materials used for the production of those products is an important activity or factor; and any member of the Board who acquires any such interest after his appointment shall disclose it as soon as possible to the Minister and to the Board; and any disclosure to the Board under this sub-paragraph shall be made at a meeting of the Board and shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board.
    In line 11, leave out "such disclosure," and insert:
    "disclosure made under the last preceding sub-paragraph."
    In line 18, at end, insert:
    6. For the purposes of subsection (3) of section one hundred and sixty-one of the Companies Act, 1948 (which provides among other things that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as auditor of a company if he is an officer or servant, or a partner of or in the employment of an officer or servant, of a holding company of that company), the Agency shall be deemed not to be a holding company.—[Mr. Sandys.]

    Third Schedule.—(IRON AND STEEL ACTIVITIES.)
    Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 37, line 34, at the end, to add:
    "but to fall within paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 thereof, as the case may be."
    As this is the last Amendment I move it with considerable satisfaction and not a little relief. In bringing the debate to an end, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and his hon. Friends for having made it possible for this debate to come to an end within the agreed time. We have had a full and useful discussion on the Report stage. In order to finish our deliberations on time, considerable restraint has been

    1361
    required both from hon. Members opposite and from my hon. Friends on this side of the House. We are grateful for this co-operation.
    I readily recognise that the Bill, as it leaves us, has been improved by the Amendments which have been made, many of which were inspired by hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: My comments will be as relevant to the Amendment as were those of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me the same latitude. I agree that the Minister has met us on a number of matters which we brought to his attention. He accepted many Amendments as a result of which a Bill which was previously, in our view, very, very, very bad indeed is now only very, very bad. We agreed, quite apart from the merits of the Bill, that if we could get reasonable co-operation we would try to limit our arguments within a certain compass. That meant that we had to restrain ourselves on many occasions. We put on the Order Paper only those Amendments which we thought were of considerable importance. There were many other Amendments we wanted to propose which were never put on the Order Paper.
    I regret that the other day the Leader of the House, presumably in ignorance of our procedure and of what has happened, made some comments which were not fair and which suggested that we had not taken more time during the Committee stage because we had not sufficient to say. As everybody who has attended our proceedings knows, that was not the situation. We could, very happily and without wasting time, have talked for many days longer both in Committee and on Report. Under normal Parliamentary procedure we would have done so, but we were confined to a certain period. There was the threat of the Guillotine, and we did not want that, so we came to a voluntary arrangement.
    We have succeeded in keeping within the time limit. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite have co-operated. I think that the time has been well spent. A number of Amendments have been accepted. The right hon. Gentleman has accepted our advice on a number of occasions and accepted our Amendments. I only hope that he will accept our advice again when
    1362
    we advise him not to proceed with this Bill. It is still so very bad that it ought to be dropped now. Then we could save another day of Parliamentary time by forgoing the Third Reading.
    Mr. Speaker: I am not sure how relevant to the Amendment were the two speeches which we have heard.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 56].

    BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL [Lords]
    Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
    Committee upon Monday next.

    BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL [By Order]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I might say a word or two on the scope of the discussion, because sometimes these things are a little difficult. I would refer to the Ruling given by my predecessor on 8th May, 1951, which is reported in c. 1760 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and in which, after reciting the past practice with regard to similar Bills when the transport undertakings were privately owned, he said:
    "It seems to me to follow logically from that practice that on a Bill promoted by the British Transport Commission, if it is a Bill of wide content, the whole administration of the Executive or Executives responsible for the matters contained in the Bill may be debated. But, if the provisions of the Bill only relate, for instance, to railways, debate must not extend to road transport, or to hotels, or to inland waterways, for each of those branches of work has a separate Executive responsible for its administration. To do otherwise would vitiate the basic rule of relevancy in debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1760–61.]
    Applying these principles to the present Bill, which I have looked at, I have come to the conclusion that there could be a fairly wide debate on the Railway Executive, and also some debate on the

    1363
    Canals Executive, while, of course, there may be the usual discussion on details that are actually in the Bill. But there is nothing in the Bill about fares, which are regulated by other machinery, nor is there anything in the Bill about the London Transport Executive. Therefore, I call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan).
    Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan (Perth and East Perthshire) rose——
    Captain Robert Ryder: On a point of order. May I raise the question of the second Amendment on the Order Paper in my name? I understand that, according to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, we shall not be able to raise any of the matters connected with the London Transport Executive. The point that I should like to put is that the London Transport Executive is a part of the undertaking of the British Transport Commission, and those of us who have put down these Amendments feel that there are certain omissions from this Bill. It is not a question of what is in the Bill, but of trying to call attention to things which ought to be in the Bill, but which, in fact, are not, and I wondered if I might have your guidance on the matter.
    Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is completely covered by the Ruling of my predecessor which I read, and which I adopt as my own; in other words, only those Executives whose duties are mentioned in the Bill can have their work discussed. To depart from that Ruling would be to widen the scope of the debate far beyond what is customary on a Private Bill when it comes up for Second Reading.
    Captain Ryder: May we, then, discuss various factors which have, in fact, affected London Transport?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot give a hypothetical Ruling; we shall have to see how we get on. Discussion of the work of the London Transport Executive is not in order on this Bill, nor is the question of fares. Of that I am sure, but I am loath to limit the debate beyond what it is my duty to do. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will proceed, I shall
    1364
    endeavour to restrain him if he goes wrong.
    Mr. Norman Cole: Further to that point of order, may I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? The Amendment which you have called does not mention fares, but rests upon the question of the administration of part of the transport system. I should like to call your attention to the wording of the Preamble to the Bill, lines 11 and 12, which state:
    "… as to provide most efficiently and conveniently for the needs of the public."
    and so on. May I have your guidance on that point?
    Mr. Speaker: The words of the Preamble are indeed related to the Bill, but they do not permit me to extend the scope of the debate to all matters which concern the public; otherwise, that would be to make nonsense of what has been the practice in these matters.
    Captain Ryder: May I ask if the debate will be confined entirely to the first Amendment, which seems to be on a somewhat narrow subject, or whether we shall be able to finish the debate on the first Amendment and then have a more general debate?
    Mr. Speaker: We shall see how we get on about that.
    7.6 p.m.
    Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill promoted by a body whose operations are conducted in such a way that its rolling stock is dirty, its maintenance inadequate and its train service unreliable.
    I will endeavour to be brief and factual. The reason for seeking to discuss the matters mentioned in the Amendment is that there is general and widespread concern in the country about the matters covered by the Amendment. The British Transport Commission are seeking new powers in this Bill, and I think it is only right and in the public interest that we should question whether we should give further powers to this organisation, which, at the moment, do not appear to be using their existing powers as effectively as they should be. It is on these lines that I propose to discuss the Amendment.

    1365
    Those representing the British Transport Commission have written to my hon. Friends and myself asking us if we could mention specific examples of dirty trains, late trains or badly maintained rolling stock. Of course, it is not a matter of individual trains; it is a matter of a great many trains, and, therefore, to give one example of what has happened already would not be profitable in the field of investigation. I am not suggesting for a moment that the famous trains, such as the Flying Scotsman, the Queen of Scots and the Cornish Riviera Express, are dirty. I think we must realise that some of these famous trains are living up pretty well to their old reputation, but not quite as well as they should, even so.
    We have the famous trains, but we have the infamous as well, and the local trains, those which do not possess famous names or do not run over long stretches of track, are frequently in a deplorable state. I do not wish to quote a whole lot of individual trains to the House, but I am sure that every member of the travelling public knows what we are seeking to do. I have had letters myself, and I know that many of my hon. Friends have had them, from a great many people in different parts of the country—from Scotland, Kent, Cambridge, Wales, Cumberland and other parts. This is not just a matter of the 10.50 from Euston to Perth that I am trying to press, although that is one of the most unpunctual trains in the British time-table.
    As clear evidence of the unpunctuality of trains, I cannot do better than quote "The Times" of 19th January, which had an extremely restrained and interesting article on the subject of the punctuality of trains, and the conclusion reached and based upon figures was that in good weather—and I ask the House to note those words—about 60 per cent. of express passenger trains, and 80 per cent. of all other passenger trains, arrived at their destinations on time. Sixty per cent. of long-distance express passenger trains means not much more than half of those trains arriving punctually.
    Can anybody say that that is a satisfactory state of affairs in the great British railway system? I think it is not. It is easier for a long-distance express passenger train to be late on its schedule, because the schedule is much more closely drawn than those of the more localised
    1366
    lines. Therefore, one could expect to have a higher rate of lateness on those than on the local trains. But the fact that only 60 per cent. are running to time is nothing to be proud of or for the British Transport Commission to crow about.
    Before the war, people only commented if a train was late whereas today they comment if it is early. That is a deplorable state of affairs. The 10.50 from Euston to Perth is more often than not 45 minutes late, at least on the one day a week on which I travel on it. Curiously enough, on the two successive Friday mornings after the Amendment appeared on the Order Paper it arrived on time. I would not be so conceited, nor would my hon. Friends associated with me, to suggest that the Amendment was the reason for it, but it was certainly an interesting coincidence.
    Last week, however, it was again 45 minutes late, but that was due to fog on the line. Nobody can blame trains for being late in foggy weather, and nobody but a fool would wish them to take risks in such weather. But the 60 per cent. of trains which ran to time did so in good weather. I am told that last Thursday there was fog going north, and therefore all the passengers accepted the need for caution.
    The dirtiness of trains is something which is quite inexcusable, especially when we are hoping to attract tourists to this country. Some of the trains on which I have travelled are a disgrace. While there may be adequate reasons for not replacing certain trains, there can be no excuse for dirt. The things about which I am complaining are dirty lavatories, broken fitments and dirty cushions which cannot be used until a newspaper has been placed between them and one's head.
    All this gives a bad impression to foreign visitors, and this tourist traffic, especially in Scotland, is of extreme importance.
    Mr. Percy Collick: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to be fair even to the British Transport Commission. He has just stated that a train on which he travelled was in the condition he is now describing. I think he owes it to the Commission to say what train it was and the day on which it occurred.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The dirt had certainly not accumulated in one day; it had taken years to accumulate. I do not think it reasonable to expect me to name the particular day, but the fact that we have received similar evidence from all over the country cannot be ignored. I am not suggesting for one moment that this Amendment is based solely on my own personal experience, though my own experience would amply justify it. I cannot speak for the experiences of other hon. Members, but both sides of the House will know that what I am saying is accurate.
    Mr. Collick Mr. Collick rose——
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity. I am not trying to be unfair to the British Transport Commission, which has a lot on its plate. The fact that it is top-heavy is not the fault of the Commission, but of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. Collick: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not met the challenge.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The Commission have only to ask the travelling public in any part of the country to get confirmation of what I am saying. That, surely, is fair enough.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: That is due to its black legacy.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Yes, six years of Socialism is a very black legacy.
    I have in my hand an advertisement taken from one of the London daily papers—it appeared in most of them—showing a happy trio who are advised to go to see friends and to go by rail. It says:
    "Go in comfort; get there fresher and sooner. It costs so little to visit your friends when you go by train."
    At the bottom it says:
    "It is quick, comfortable, convenient."
    But if only 60 per cent. of the trains are punctual, how can it be either quick or convenient? If the dirt which I have described is there—and everyone knows it is—how can it be called comfortable? I do not think that is a fair advertisement. Although I agree that British Railways have the right to advertise their wares as much as any other organisation, I think they ought to produce what they say in their advertisements. I cannot
    1368
    talk about the British Road Services as otherwise I could give particulars of their dishonest advertisements, such as the one which says "Go by Pickfords" and does not say that it is one of their services.
    Dirt and unpunctuality are two very serious matters, and I hope that the fact that we have raised this matter today may give the British Transport Commission a jolt. I know their difficulties, but I also know that they could do far better than they are doing at present.
    I now come to the much more important subject of inadequate maintenance. Here, of course, we are on very thin ice as regards the matter of public safety. The Commission asked whether I could give examples, and I drew their attention to the report on railway accidents issued on the authority of the Minister of Transport by the officer appointed—as is always done quite rightly—to hold an inquiry after an accident.
    The report to which I would draw the attention of the House relates to a derailment last year at a place called—I think I am right in my pronunciation of it—Blea Moor. In that report Colonel MacMullen, the reporting officer, goes into great detail about this accident, and at the end of the report he says:
    "I can, therefore, attribute this accident only to the fact that insufficient attention had been paid over a considerable period to the examination of engine brake gear."
    That is a very serious statement.
    He goes on to say:
    "This serious accident … was the third case on British Railways attributable to a locomotive defect within a year."
    There was one at Weedon, one at Glasgow, Queen Street, and this particular one at Blea Moor.
    "The former"—
    that is, Weedon—
    "was caused by a mistake on the part of an experienced fitter who mismanaged the task of transposing the bogie axles, and it would most probably have been prevented by better supervision. In the Glasgow case a vacuum grate failure occurred as a result of a defect which had obtained for some time. In all three of these accidents the engines were in traffic in an unsafe condition, and in this particular case also the engine must have been in that condition for a considerable period."
    These are really terrible words to be used in connection with the public interest.

    1369
    He goes on to say:
    "If the safety of the travelling public is to be ensured locomotives must be efficiently maintained and this requires the work of examination and repair to be conscientiously supervised. The fact that engines are used so much more intensively nowadays makes the question of close supervision specially important. The necessity for careful attention to detail needs no emphasis."
    On a still later accident, the unhappy one which occurred near Crewkerne, Somerset, the report states:
    "The accident was … caused by part of the brake gear of the tender of the engine becoming detached. It was the result of an unsatisfactory feature in the design, but ineffective examination and an accumulation of dirt on the undergear may have contributed…Such a defect might not have been noticed because of the dirt that had accumulated under the tender, and similar conditions were found under the tender of another engine of the same class. Instructions have already been issued by the Regional Officers"—
    we are all glad to hear this—
    "that special attention is to be paid to the removal of the dirt so as to ensure that all the brake fittings can be examined effectively."
    That is a report on only four accidents on British Railways during the year as a result of lack of examination. How many more engines are potentially liable to accident if examination is not being carried out as carefully as it should be? I believe most sincerely that the British Transport Commission cannot complain when we say that maintenance is giving rise to anxiety in the public mind today. Those of us who travel frequently on trains and meet such courtesy and attention from the train staffs find that the staff also are very worried about this; and, of course, they, who travel far more than we do, are entitled to proper supervision of locomotives and gear generally.
    Our locomotives have been famous for their design for generations. Up to the war they sparkled like new pins. Today they are filthy. There is no other word to apply to them. If one sees a clean engine today one immediately comments on it whereas previously I remember from boyhood seeing firemen, whenever the engine stopped anywhere, running along and cleaning this and that.
    Mr. Collick: That was on the old "Highland."
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The old "Highland" may have had its drawbacks, but those concerned were proud of their
    1370
    railway, and their engines were clean. That was true of all the railways of Great Britain. It is a misfortune that we see such fine locomotives in such a disgraceful condition today. For all the dirt one sees there is plenty that one does not see, and that dirt is probably more important in locomotives, as the report of the inspecting officer which I have quoted stated.
    I want to know why it is that British Railways have got into this condition. After all, the French railways are nationalised and they are very punctual. In my experience of French railways since the war, their rolling stock is certainly as clean as, if not cleaner than, that of British Railways, and the food provided is far better. That is an answer to those who say that nationalisation is to blame in this country. It cannot be that, because the French keep their trains punctual although the railways have been nationalised.
    Why is it that we in Great Britain, who invented railways and gave them to the whole world, having set the example, should have now come to this sorry state of affairs? The only way to run a great organisation like a railway is to work up a genuine, lasting ésprit de corps among all concerned. Time was when it used to be a matter of immense pride to be a guard, driver or fireman on British railways. The ésprit de corps of the railways was of the highest order and that is one of the reasons why we had such an efficient service.
    Why has that gone to glory? We have broken the hearts and hurt the pride of those who work on the railways. Nationalisation has smashed their ésprit de corps and everyone must agree that if ésprit de corps goes, a very large degree of efficiency must go as a result.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: If that argument is sound, why is the British Post Office such a fine institution? It has been nationalised for all these years and we are perfectly satisfied about its ésprit de corps.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should be out of order in discussing the Post Office, but I could do so at some length. The fighting Services are efficient in spite of Government Departments, not because of them. But we must not be led away

    1371
    on that subject. I am talking about railways. I mean what I say and I do not think that I am unfair.
    I must pass now to further items in this Bill. I leave the questions of dirt, unpunctuality and bad maintenance in the hope that what I have said may do good, and in the sincere conviction that bringing these matters to light publicly in Parliament can do no harm anyway.
    There are one or two Clauses of this Bill which worry us. Clause 16 deals with level crossings and rights of way.
    It states:
    "(1) As from the passing of this Act—

    (a) all rights of way over the level crossing referred to in Part I of the First Schedule of this Act; and

    (b) all rights of way over the level crossings referred to in Part II of the said Schedule other than a right of way for all persons to use those level crossings on foot; shall subject to the provisions of this section be extinguished …"

    The proviso referred to is in Clause 16 (2) of the Bill which states:
    "The Commission shall provide and maintain for the convenience of persons on foot wicket gates or stiles on both sides of the railway …"
    instead of the right of way. I wonder whether the British Transport Commission are within their rights, in a Bill of this kind, to extinguish automatically large numbers of rights of way without providing that a man riding or leading a horse can get across the level crossing. A wicket gate or stile is no good either to a horseman or a man leading a horse.
    I should like to have an answer on that point, because the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. drew up, with the approval of this House, the most elaborate precautions for protecting rights of way in the public interest. We should have some explanation why these existing rights of way should be suddenly extinguished, just to satisfy the Commission and, I presume, just to save trouble.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: And expense.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If one put a wicket gate where one did not exist before, I should have thought that that would cost more than leaving things as they were.
    Mr. Sparks: The hon. and gallant Member is on an important point. I am sure he will aprpeciate that, although these facilities are provided for the public benefit, the railways throughout the country have to meet the complete financial cost. Surely, if it is of public concern that the public should make use of these crossings, there ought to be public responsibility by way of financial contribution.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not have a very close understanding of this matter, not having been occupied with the railways professionally in any way, but I should have thought that these crossings were provided for the benefit of the railways as much as for the benefit of the public. I think, therefore, that we should have an explanation of why these rights are being extinguished.
    Part IV of this Bill, from Clause 21 onwards, deals with lands and the power to acquire lands. This is a point on which I always feel very strongly. Actually, the amount of land which it is proposed to acquire compulsorily under this Bill is very limited, but that, unfortunately, is the excuse given for every acquisition of land in this country. If one multiplies the numbers of limited amounts of lands acquired, one obtains the hideous total of 50,000 acres of good farming land which is lost to agriculture every year in this country.
    I should like to be assured by the Minister that the Commission will not be allowed to take farming land even if it is close to a railway unless there is absolutely no alternative land. I should like to know whether it is a fact that wherever land is acquired by the Railway Executive or the British Transport Commission for any purpose, the Minister of Agriculture in England and Wales and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland are consulted beforehand.
    That should be the inevitable rule in these days when land is taken for any purpose other than for farming. When all is said and done, we live on farming; every acre of this country, which is only a small island, is valuable from the farming point of view, and we are going to become more and more dependent on it.
    I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I hope I shall be believed when I say that I have not spoken for

    1373
    the mere fun of "getting at" the British Transport Commission, although, speaking as a member of the travelling public, I must say that that is sometimes at the back of one's mind. Bringing these matters to the notice of the Minister can do nothing but good. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us on behalf of the Transport Commission that they will give serious consideration to these matters which have been brought to light, and that they will accept that it is done not in a carping spirit but in order to put the great British railway system of this country once more in that high position which it held right up to the war.
    7.32 p.m.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The House should be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) for having moved this Amendment because there is no doubt that there is anxiety in the public mind at what appears to be the deterioration in the safety of the travelling public. If this debate provides an opportunity for the Minister to allay some of those anxieties and fears, then the time of the House will not have been wasted.
    There is no doubt that the deterioration in the cleanliness and maintenance of locomotives and trains as described by my hon. and gallant Friend is one of the causes of this public anxiety. The public say that it is evident that there has been a falling off in the attention given to the trains and they wonder, therefore, whether there is some falling off in the attention given to other matters affecting safety, the running of the locomotives, the axles and such things, some details of which have been given by my hon. and gallant Friend. If the Minister can show that that public anxiety is ill-founded, we shall have done a useful job of work.
    I should like to draw the attention of the House to the Economic Commission for Europe Transport Division's Annual Bulletin of Transport Statistics for 1951, which was issued last year by the United Nations. Study of this interesting document shows that on British Railways the number of journeys per person per year fell from 28 in 1938 to 20 in 1951. The statistics in this document also show that other European countries registered a
    1374
    substantial increase in railway passenger traffic. I am wondering whether that decline in the United Kingdom is due to the reasons mentioned in the Amendment.
    Another interesting fact which emerges from this Report is that the frequency of service as measured by the number of trains per mile of line has dropped in this country. In 1938 Britain was first, in 1950 we were second and now we are third. Again, I am wondering whether there is any relation between those statistics and the matters mentioned in the Amendment.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Which countries took Britain's place in frequency?
    Sir W. Wakefield: Switzerland and Holland have gone ahead of us. There may be good reasons for this, but if so, they should be stated. I mention these points to give the Minister an opportunity of producing reasons which we in this House and the public are entitled to have. There are facts and figures which are very disturbing. Our railways are nationalised and we want to see them successful. We do not want to see our railways declining in efficiency while those in other European countries progress.
    Mr. Sparks: The hon. Gentleman will find much of the explanation in the fact that British Railways have been closing down their passenger services on uneconomic branch lines and have been running them in conjunction with road passenger services.
    Sir W. Wakefield: That may be the answer. I should like to know whether similar conditions apply on the Continent. I do not know, and I am raising these matters because they should be explained to us and to the general public, who are deeply concerned.
    The utilisation of passenger coaches and goods wagons in the United Kingdom is the lowest in Europe. Presumably there is some reason, but I do not know what it is. Utilisation ought to mean more economic operation. The turn-round time of goods wagons is 10.4 days in this country compared with 4.3 days in Germany. There may be an explanation, but it seems that, compared with Germany, we have twice as many wagons on our rails as would appear to be necessary. What is the answer?

    1375
    I come to my last point out of many which could be raised in this debate. The ratio of staff to traffic in this country is the highest in comparison with Western European countries. Why is this? It suggests that our British railways are not being operated as efficiently as they ought to be. I would like to know whether this is so.
    Perhaps the Minister can say how closely this document has been studied. Why is it that certain railways in Europe are apparently able to do these things better than we can? I am sure that the whole House would like to know the answer. I raise these points only because this Bill provides us with an opportunity to consider this question, and it would be wrong if we did not take advantage of it to raise matters which are of concern and substance to this House and the general public.
    Mr. Speaker: In answer to the hon. and gallant Member who raised the question, the original Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time" is left open to debate within the limits which I originally announced, as well as the Amendment.
    7.41 p.m.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) are respected in this House. I was, therefore, a little surprised that they moved and seconded their Amendment in a way which completely failed to prove the accusations which they are levelling against the British Transport Commission. Both hon. Gentlemen embarked upon a number of generalisations without giving any specific instances except that given by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire concerning the train from Perth to London.
    I cannot understand why they did not take advantage of the Commission's suggestion that they should inform them of their specific complaints, so that they could be answered and looked into.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Perhaps I did not make it clear. I have written to the Transport Commission saying that I did not need to go into detailed explana-
    1376
    tions about the dirtiness of trains and referring them to the statistical figures given in "The Times" so far as unpunctuality was concerned and to the inspector of accidents in connection with maintenance.
    Miss Irene Ward: I am concerned with this Amendment, so the hon. Gentleman may like to know my answer. I wrote to the Parliamentary agents saying that if they would look at the file in the possession of the chairman of the Commission they would find a whole series of allegations which I have made, which had been investigated, and on which I have received letters from the chairman. All the facts are there.
    Mr. Davies: If the hon. Lady has the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, she will no doubt inform us what those complaints were and what were the explanations of the Commission in reply.
    Miss Ward: I certainly will.
    Mr. Davies: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment might have referred to some of the difficulties which have confronted the Commission since the war and he might also have given them some credit for what they have achieved. Their achievements have been very considerable and their difficulties very great.
    The three main accusations made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman were that the rolling stock is dirty; maintenance is inadequate; and there is unpunctuality. Before looking into his accusations to see whether they are justified and to see how the Commission are meeting these alleged deficiencies it would be as well if we looked at the handicaps under which they have been operating since 1948.
    Due to the pre-war position, which was extremely difficult, and which arose largely from the intense road-rail competition, the railways were operating under financial difficulties and were not then able to engage in that degree of modernisation which was taking place in many other countries and which left British Railways lagging behind. After the war there were vast arrears of maintenance, which has resulted in the system becoming very much out of date and in bad repair.

    1377
    No one can deny that the British Railways when they were nationalised in 1948, inherited a system which was in a pretty poor state. Since then they have had to concentrate, in face of these difficulties, on endeavouring to bring their system up to modern standards of operational efficiency. It is necessary to look a little more closely at some of the difficulties which have resulted in accusations being directed against the Commission. We all recall the very bad condition of the rolling stock on many suburban and branch lines before the war. Frequent criticisms of the British Railways were made in those days. Praise was given for the operation of the main line routes with their crack expresses, but when Private Bills were before this House—and on other occasions—criticisms were frequently levelled against the railway companies.
    We have seen some improvements since, but the fact remains that of the 42,000 passenger vehicles operating on the British Railways today, 5,500 are in service beyond their normal life. They should have been scrapped. They are obsolescent, but they have to be utilised because of the inability of British Railways to replace them due to the inadequate allocation of steel. That is why so many of the old coaches are still operating. However much one endeavours to keep one's old stock in good condition it cannot but look shabby and give the impression of being dirty.
    British Railways are doing their utmost to improve their stock and many hon. Members may have read of the opening of the new carriage cleansing plant at Willesden this week. The Railway Executive cannot be blamed for the fact that they have to operate these very old passenger coaches, which are, incidentally, being utilised far more than they were before the war. They are carrying more passengers per coach and running a greater mileage annually than they did before the war.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am obliged to the hon. Member for what he has said on the question of dirtiness; but these old carriages can surely be cleaned. I am not talking about dilapidations but about surface dirt, under the seats, on the seats, on the brackets and every other part. Why is that?
    Mr. Davies: That is a generalisation. If the hon. and gallant Member gives specific instances of rolling stock being dirty and neglected, the Commission will take action.
    The staff engaged at present in maintaining the cleanliness of the carriages is larger than it was before the war and new methods and new equipment are being used in order to maintain a higher standard. It is because the rolling stock is over age that difficulties arise.
    The same applies to locomotives. Here, again, old stock is in operation. There has been inadequate replacement, but the locomotives are being used to a far greater extent than before the war. In spite of that and in spite of the accident which the hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted and which we all regret, there are fewer breakdowns today than there were in 1948, when the railways became nationalised. Since 1949, the mileage run by locomotives without a mechanical breakdown has been doubled, on an average. Whereas, in 1949, for every 15,000 miles there was a mechanical casualty, in November, 1952, locomotives were running 30,000 miles, on an average, before a mechanical casualty was experienced.
    Major Sydney Markham (Bucking-ham): Would the hon. Gentleman give the comparable figures for 1938, which would be more to the point?
    Mr. Davies: I do not think they are more to the point when we are showing how, since they have been in operation, the Transport Commission have been striving successfully to improve the maintenance of the stock which they inherited under very bad conditions. I would scarcely say that this was normal post-war recovery when we appreciate that they have doubled the efficiency of their stock in a matter of three years. That shows that there has been a great effort by the staff, and I think they deserve full credit for what they have achieved.
    On average, the locomotives in service today are subject to only one mechanical failure a year. Anyone who has an old motor car knows very well that the number of mechanical breakdowns averages far more than that. The improvement which has taken place disproves the

    1379
    accusations of inadequate maintenance of locomotives. In addition, the Commission have succeeded in reducing their fuel consumption substantially. The amount of coal consumed per mile per locomotive has fallen by more than 2½ lb. in the last few years, which, again, shows that there has not been inadequate maintenance.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that locomotives were dirtier than they used to be. Does he know the explanation? It is the difficulty of obtaining cleaners for locomotives. The reason for that is that whereas before the war there was unemployment and it was easy to obtain labour to do that dirty and not altogether pleasant work, today, despite higher wages and better working conditions, the railways are unable to obtain sufficient labour for cleaning locomotives. If we returned to conditions of unemployment from the present condition of comparative full employment, no doubt the situation would be different.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro) rose——
    Mr. Davies: I cannot give way.
    I want to deal next with the question of punctuality. Here, again, it is easy for us to generalise from our own experience. We are all aggravated when the trains in which we are travelling are late, but if we look at the overall picture of punctuality we see that it is much better than that quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman from a letter in "The Times." The figures which have been published by the Transport Commission, and which are obviously accurate, indicate that the number of long-distance expresses which have arrived at the right time or less than five minutes late has improved from 63.3 per cent. in 1948 to 68.3 per cent. in 1952, which shows a substantial improvement.
    More than two-thirds of the long-distance expresses during 1952 arrived either punctually or less than five minutes late. I think that is a fairly good record for long-distance expresses when we consider the uncertain weather which we have in this country, including fog, which, of course, is the greatest factor in delaying long-distance expresses, as well as other trains.
    1380
    If we look at the total number of trains operating, then the percentage is 75 per cent.; three-quarters of the trains operating in this country arrive on time or less than five minutes late. I think that is a satisfactory record, and it is certainly better than the record of 60 per cent. which the hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted.
    That good record could not be achieved if there were not adequate maintenance of the rolling stock and the permanent way. I therefore suggest that, although we are all dissatisfied from time to time with certain aspects of the operation of the railways—because we are all travellers and we all experience inconvenience from time to time, which is inherent in any large railway system—we should look at the overall picture and see what the record and the achievement of the system has been.
    That achievement has been great and has been steadily improving since nationalisation. I do not suggest that it is due entirely to nationalisation; it is due partly to the circumstances which have made it possible and to the staff, the management and all concerned. I deny that the staff and management lack esprit de corps. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman talks to the management and to workers on the job he will find that there is a pride in operating the railways as efficiently and successfully as possible. To suggest that there is no esprit de corps is being somewhat insulting to those who are responsible for the great achievements which are to the credit of British Railways.
    Perhaps I may sum up the difficulties which have arisen and which have prevented British Railways from developing in the way in which I am sure those responsible for their operation would like them to develop and which would increase the pride of all those operating them. First, there are the restrictions which have been placed on capital investment since the war. The railways have not been free to spend what they wished to spend on improving their system and modernising and developing it. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, they have been handicapped.
    Secondly, there has been a shortage of labour and materials which has handicapped them in maintenance, in renewals

    1381
    and in general operations. Of the shortage of materials, the greatest problem has been created by the inadequate allocation of steel to British Railways, which has prevented them from building new rolling stock and which has handicapped them in normal renewals and maintenance.
    Take the case of passenger coaches. In 1952, it was not possible to build a single new passenger coach. There was not sufficient steel available to British Railways to enable them to construct a single new carriage—and yet their programme provided for 2,000 new coaches. The same applied to freight wagons. Only about half the capacity available in private and railway workshops was used, the balance either being idle or used for other purposes. That was due to the shortage of steel. The same comment applies to other rolling stock and, unfortunately, to maintenance of the permanent way.
    The other main difficulty which has faced them is the obsolescent or over-age stock which they still have to operate. British Railways have to make up their minds about priorities. That is a great difficulty which confronts them. They have to decide which is more important—on the one hand, to have newly-painted stations, modernised stations and clean rolling stock, or on the other hand, to modernise their signalling and to renew their permanent way. They have to decide, also, between different items of rolling stock and they have to decide the best way to allocate their materials and, particularly, the steel and the timber available to them. In making those decisions I think they try to maintain a fair balance. First of all, they want to bring their system up to the highest possible standard of efficient operation, and I consider that more important than improving the appearance of stations and effecting similar improvements.
    Despite all these difficulties, the railways have been operating with a great degree of efficiency. Frequently in this House, in debates on the Transport Bill and on other occasions, figures have been quoted of the increased efficiency of British Railways. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone quoted the E.C.E. Report, I hope also with him that the Minister will give us some enlightenment on that. However, I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that although some of the
    1382
    Continental railways have improved their operation more than we have ours, because they have not been faced with the same difficulties that we have, particularly as regards restriction on development, we have, at the same time, improved in certain respects at a rate of improvement that has been greater than theirs.
    I would also suggest to him that it is not possible to compare the operation of British Railways with that of the railways of some continental countries. We have in this country the busiest railway system in the world. It is more intensively used than any other railway system, I believe —possibly with the exception of the Belgian. [Interruption.] I hope that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) will give us some advice when he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    As I was saying, British Railways, in spite of their difficulties, have greatly increased their efficiency. However, that is not to say they should be complacent today or that they should be free from criticism, or that no criticism is justified. Of course it is. It is of any large-scale organisation. I do think that, perhaps, the railway mind is inclined to be rigid—that it is sometimes inclined to run along tracks not dissimilar from those on which the trains run. It is unfortunate that just as British Railways were becoming less rigid, just as those responsible for their operation were becoming more flexible in their outlook, and were becoming more transport-minded, and able to cooperate and work out integration with other transport systems, the transport policy of this country has been changed, and that that integration and co-operation is to be retarded.
    I think further that, perhaps, the railways have occasionally lacked sufficient enterprise—particularly in the old days under private enterprise—to seek the new traffic and enter into competition successfully with other forms of transport. I think that the airways corporations, for instance, in reduction of their charges for tourist traffic, set the railways a useful example. I think that the rather belated decision of the railways to engage in cheap trips from Scotland, by the running of the Starlight Special, is a venture that may well be extended. The reason that they have been unable to do this before

    1383
    has been the shortage of rolling-stock. It is only now that they are able to use rollingstock for that particular operation.
    The future of the railways, I think, lies largely in this long-distance traffic. Road coaches are the biggest competitors of the railways in effect, but their probable optimum profitable distance is something about 100 miles; over 100 miles the railways can compete successfully with road traffic, provided they charge reasonable fares. I should like to see a great extension of the cheaper fares for long-distance transport, particularly by catering for special classes of the community.
    For instance, it would be possible for the railways to institute some form of holiday family tickets, to run special limited trains over the holiday period at the off-peak hours, and to issue cheap tickets for the whole family, it would be a way in which the average family could be helped, and it would, at the same time, encourage them to travel by rail to their holiday resort. There are other ways in which the railways, as more rolling stock becomes available, could endeavour to recapture much of the long-distance transport, but they will not be able to do it unless they are enterprising, and courageous enough to cut down the fares which they charge for such journeys.
    I would conclude by saying that I think one can direct criticism against the railways as one can against any form of transport, whether privately or publicly owned, but that the Transport Commission do not deserve the criticism that has been levelled against them tonight by those who moved and seconded the Amendment. The railways have a future. Under their present management, if they are not interfered with over much as a result of the present Government's transport policy, and if they are not starved of capital as they have been during recent years, and if they are not deprived of steel particularly, as well as of other materials, then, with vision and imagination, they have a future ahead of them which, with the continuation of nationalisation, will show that British Railways will yet catch up and ultimately overtake the railways on the Continent, to which reference has been made tonight.
    8.8 p.m.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I wonder if he would elaborate his point about the shortage of cleaners? Would he not agree that the shortage of cleaners, which everybody knows about, is much more due to two factors other than the improvement in employment since the war? The first is that the differential between the wages of engine drivers, who are on the top rung of the ladder to which the cleaners are promoted, and the wages in a good job not on the railways, is much less than it used to be, so that a man is less attracted to engine driving; and the second is the call-up.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. I was going to call the hon. Gentleman later, but if he is going to make a speech now, I shall not be able to do so. Does he wish to speak? I was going to call him.
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was asking the hon. Gentleman a question. It was becoming somewhat lengthy, but if I may be allowed to carry on from where I was on that point about the cleaners. I would say that it is true that there is a very great shortage of cleaners, and that is a point which has been made before in this House on a number of occasions. But I would respectfully suggest that the shortage is certainly not due solely to the improvement in the unemployment figures since before the war.
    Of course there was unemployment then. but the reason for the shortage now is that that particular form of employment is less attractive than it used to be, and it is so first for the reason I have mentioned—the differential between the wages of an engine driver and in the wages of a good job outside nowadays is not so great as it was. An engineer driver's wages are not so good in comparison with some wages paid in factories for jobs that are lighter and less responsible. Therefore, the attraction to the engine driver's job is less than it used to be.
    Second, there is the question of the call-up. It is probably regrettable but it is understandable that a young man expecting to go to the Army in a very short time, when he is looking for work in the mean while, is not going to choose a job which is rather hard and which is a dirty

    1385
    job, and is one which, though it has ultimate prospects, has no immediate attraction. The reasons a young man became a cleaner was not because he wanted to become a cleaner. Nobody ever wanted to be a cleaner. A man became a cleaner because some day be hoped to become a driver, which was an attractive job. [Interruption.] Cleaners are promoted to be firemen and firemen are promoted to be drivers.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: That is most profound, is it not?
    Mr. Wilson: Reference was made to fog. It has always been a puzzle to me why the British railway service still has a fog man. I suppose it is insisted upon by the trade unions, but with automatic train control and many other devices trains really ought not to run so much more slowly in fog and could be speeded up very considerably. The running of trains generally is much slower than it was before the war. A table of figures was published not long ago showing that a large number of express trains travel slower than they did in 1938 and some of them slower than they did in 1913. Of course, there has not been so much spent on maintenance in these days, but an effort should be made to increase the speed of trains.
    The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) again raised the question of railway deterioration being due to road competition. I fancy that I would be out of order if I developed that theme. The argument has been heard in this House on many occasions, and I have never accepted it. The deterioration of the railways is not solely due to that by any means. A great deal could be done to improve the position and I hope it will be done after the changes have been made which are to take place as the result of another Bill.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) put their case with a good deal of moderation and concentrated upon a few incidents. They did not make general charges against the British Transport Commission. It is right that that should be so at the present time because reorganisation is in the wind and is likely to take place. We hope that it will
    1386
    benefit the travelling public and by this——
    Mr. F. Beswick: On a point of order. Would it be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. Gentleman to address his speech, as he is doing, to another hon. Member under the seat?
    Mr. Wilson: I hope I was not addressing another hon. Gentleman under the seat and that I was addressing the House through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If I was not, I must apologise. I do not want to detain the House any longer as I was unexpectedly called, but of that I do not complain.
    8.13 p.m.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) should be congratulated upon the manner in which they presented their case. We may profoundly disagree with a lot they had to say, but they endeavoured to be fair in the criticisms which they made.
    The Amendment contains a reference to maintenance in these terms:
    "… its maintenance inadequate."
    I think that the British Transport Commission would agree with the description, but not for the reasons given by the mover of the Amendment. Evidently, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not read the Report of the Commission for 1951. Very important things are stated in that Report and their effects have contributed to the complaints which have been voiced here this evening.
    It may be of interest if I briefly quote one or two of the salient points from the Report, because they appertain closely to the problems that we are discussing. They relate to maintenance and the renewal of locomotives, carriages, and wagons. On page 114 the Report says this about locomotives:
    "New steam and diesel-electric locomotives intended to go into traffic in 1951 were 424, of which 308 were to be built in railway shops and 116 by contractors. The actual number built and put into service was 317, the deficiency of 107 (53 from railway shops and 54 from contractors) being mainly due to the inadequate supply of raw materials during the second half of the year. The balance of 107 locomotives has been carried forward for construction in 1952, together with the programme for that year as far as steel supplies will permit."

    1387
    Steel supplies were very poor indeed last year. The chances are that there are accumulated arrears of renewals of locomotives adding to the problem with which the hon. Gentleman dealt in his speech.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman complained that passenger carriages were in a dirty condition. On page 115 the Report says:
    "The arrears of new construction on authorised programmes at the end of the year totalled 1,082 passenger carriages and 405 non-passenger carrying vehicles; this reacted on the standard of service offered during the heavy summer traffic, and is much to be regretted. 525 of the vehicles built by the railways were to standard designs and 121 of them were ready for operation in the special Festival of Britain trains which began in May. Shortage of material, especially steel, during the closing months of the year caused a reduction of 99 in the output of passenger carriages compared with 1950."
    It goes on to say, with reference to the repair of passenger carriages:
    "At the peak of the summer traffic requirements, the number of passenger-carrying vehicles under or awaiting repair was 6.9 per cent. the same as in 1950. In July, it became apparent that new building would fall below expectation, and condemnation of old vehicles was restricted"
    In other words, old passenger-carrying vehicles that ought to have been condemned and put out of operation were allowed to continue in service. Then the Report says:
    "There remained in the stock 5,500 passenger-carrying vehicles over age, of which 3,000 gangwayed vehicles are over 35 years old and 2,500 non-gangwayed are over 40 years old."
    Freight wagons have a very important bearing on the general operation of the railway service. Under the heading "New Construction." the Report says, on page 116:
    "36,910 new wagons, including brake vans, were built in 1951, 15,580 in railway workshops and 21,330 by contractors. The new construction included 22,452 mineral wagons with a total carrying capacity of 378,763 tons."
    This is the important part:
    "The total output was less by 10,000 wagons than the workshop capacity of the railways and the trade, the loss having been entirely due to shortage of steel."
    At every turn of the way we come up against the shortage of steel.
    It is alleged that wagons are running in a bad state of repair and that they are dangerous and contribute to
    1388
    accidents. The Report, after stating that there had been a satisfactory reduction in the number of wagons under or awaiting repair, shows in a table that since 1947 the number has been very considerably reduced, from 11.08 to 6.28 in 1951. The target at which the Transport Commission are aiming is 5.5 per cent. of wagons under or awaiting repair. The Report says, on page 116:
    "The number out of service for repair would have been less—probably down to the target of 5.5 per cent.—but for two important facts; first, the need, because of the shortage of steel for building new wagons, to retain in service over 46,000 wagons authorised for condemnation."
    These wagons have been authorised for condemnation as being unfit to operate on the system, but the B.T.C. are compelled to operate them because of the insufficiency of steel to build sufficient renewals. The only alternative is to decline to accept traffic, which it would be impossible for the Commission to do. So the Report says that they have had to
    "retain in service over 46,000 wagons authorised for condemnation."
    and to keep in stock
    "63,000 wagons of the former privately-owned fleet which were life-expired but not yet authorised for condemnation. The enforced retention of these old wagons necessitated much uneconomical repair work."
    I must apologise for quoting these paragraphs of the B.T.C. Report, but they are germane to the issue we are discussing. It is no use the hon. and gallant Gentleman making complaints about the bad state of railway passenger coaches when, through the shortage of steel and restrictions on capital development, the railways are compelled to operate old, worn-out stock that ought to have gone a long time ago and are unable to construct a sufficient number of new locomotives to replace those which ought to have been put out of service as having served their time. This applies to wagons, locomotives, passenger-carrying vehicles, and accounts largely for many of the complaints of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman had something to say about level crossings and complained about the proposal of the Commission to restrict the public user of certain railway level crossings. I think it is recognised that the public should have some financial responsibility for the

    1389
    maintenance of these level crossings. It is all very well to say that they exist for the convenience of the railways as well as the public, but the Transport Commission are compelled to shoulder the complete cost of their maintenance. That is a substantial item because at many of the crossings there has to be a level crossing keeper and, in some cases, two. If one takes the number of crossings in the country and multiplies by that number the wage paid to each level crossing keeper, apart from the cost of maintaining the permanent way over which the crossing runs, it will be found to be a substantial item.
    It cost the B.T.C. £2 million a year to maintain public roads over railway bridges which are used by their competitors, the private hauliers. The Commission have to pay to the authority the cost of maintaining the public roadway over all their railway bridges. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can complain if the Commission, having to maintain financially the level crossings, have come to the conclusion that they can do their job much more economically by a rearrangement.
    Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of the Perth run. He is unreasonable in complaining about the late running of that train. There may be one longer run from Inverness, but the Perth run is one of the longest in the country. When one studies the route of the train from Perth to London and considers the many junctions over which it has to pass, coming down through the main railway network, there is no valid basis for the complaint that the train is sometimes late. With all the good will in the world it is not easy to maintain punctuality over a very long route which runs right through the spinal cord of the railway system. It requires only a slight delay here and there, because of another train or some other unforeseen circumstance, to create a few minutes' delay.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be reasonable in his approach to this problem because it is right that railway-men should play for safety with an express of that description. It is far better to chance a delay of 10 or 15 or 20 minutes than to involve a great express train in any risk of disaster. We must be careful that we do not press the operating
    1390
    staff to take too great risks in regard to express trains.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair to my hon. and gallant Friend. He pointed out to the House that this train consistently, twice a week, is 45 minutes late.
    Mr. Sparks: Yes, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he travelled on it once a week and that when he travelled the train was late. It may be that it ran to time on the other five days. It is advisable to get this in its proper perspective. There is always room for improvement in express running and other running, but I do not think the hon. and gallant Member is reasonable in his attitude about that train.
    In putting forward their grievances tonight, hon. Gentlemen have certainly given us an opportunity which we should not have otherwise have had to discuss these very important matters affecting the greatest transport undertaking in our country. Let us hope that improvements will result from our discussion.
    8.29 p.m.
    Mr. J. Grimond: I cannot pretend to have the knowledge about the subject which the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has. I speak merely as a frequent passenger on our railways, but I suppose passengers have their importance. It seems to me that there has been improvement in the railway system over the last few years. At the same time, it has also seemed to me that the improvement has been slow. If, as a result of the debate, some more energy, some new ideas, possibly some new personalities, even personalities from outside the country, are injected into the railway transport system, we shall owe a great debt to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan).
    I believe there has been improvement in the cleanliness of trains. I do not believe that a railway has ever been a very clean place, and there are certain parts of Britain, such as the Eastern Counties—this includes rtains to Cambridge—which appear to have an inherent tendency towards dirt. On the whole, since the war many trains are cleaner than they were, many of the carriages comparing quite favourably with what

    1391
    they might have been like after six years of war, and some soap has even reappeared, rather belatedly.
    I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire paid a tribute to the courtesy of the railway staff. Most passengers meet with great courtesy from the bulk of the staff. Many of the staff work under difficulties. I frequently start my journeys from King's Cross. It is like going over an obstacle course to get near the train. I suspect that the station is barely able to handle the amount of traffic which is put through it. The platform is overloaded with boxes and trunks, and through it all, with hoots and yells, are driven mechanical trolleys. It is a wonder that more boxes do not get left behind.
    Any large-scale programme for replacing or improving our stations would entail a very heavy capital outlay. One of the things we must face is that until we can afford the money to straighten out the tangle of stations and lines many of our railway staff must continue to work under very difficult conditions. Judging by articles which have appeared in the "Manchester Guardian," some stations in Lancashire are even worse than those in London in this respect.
    Comparisons have been made with what happens in other countries. I believe it to be true that the French railways, upon which favourable comment has been made, run at a very large loss. It is highly desirable that the loss on the railways should be cut to a minimum. I am one of those who would not like to see the railways become very much more spick and span if it meant an even bigger loss for the Transport Commission. The first thing the railways have to do is to get somewhere near making ends meet.
    There is no doubt that in this country the railways must operate under great difficulties. The hauls are short. There has been a sentimental objection to cutting out intermediate stations and branch lines. Until the Railway Executive do that, I do not believe they can avoid losses. We must face the fact that many intermediate stations must be cut out and bus services substituted. I believe that where a service is continued and passenger trains are run, an effort should be made to fill them and to run a sufficient number of trains per day to make them
    1392
    a real contribution to transport. It is no good running a couple of passenger trains per day up and down a line with very high fares, because everyone will merely go by bus.
    Again, many stations are sited some distance from the centre of population, and these must be closed or altered. It is a waste of money to run trains backwards and forwards through open country. If it is desired to keep some of these lines open for strategic or social reasons, the cost should be placed on the taxpayer and not on the railways.
    I was interested in the compliments which have been paid to the Starlight Expresses. We have heard that the railways have been unable to build new rolling stock and that it is lack of rolling stock which has prevented them from introducing similar expresses before. It is curious that, in spite of the fact that the railways built no new rolling stock in 1952, they have suddenly found enough rolling stock to introduce these expresses in 1953.
    I suppose it could not have anything to do with the fact that the B.E.A. are running cheaper air passages or that certain gentlemen are trying to run long-distance 'bus services. However, I cannot entirely put those considerations out of my mind. I believe that if B.E.A. and the 'bus companies will continue their good work more rolling stock will be found and more expresses of this kind will be introduced.
    I agree entirely with most of what the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire said about the punctuality of trains. My experience bears out his, at least in respect of the long-distance expresses. I have found them continually late. I used to take a train to Glasgow which was supposed to arrive one and a quarter hours before the 'bus to my 'plane left, but I had to give it up because it was consistently one and a half hours late, and I missed the 'plane.
    Visitors to this country before the war said that the striking thing about our railway system was that a train was hardly ever late, and if it was late every one was astonished and angry. Now everyone is astonished and very pleased if a train is on time. I think we must get back to the state of affairs in which people are astonished and angry if a train

    1393
    is late. After all, the schedules are slower than they were before the First World War yet we cannot keep to them. I should like to see them put back still further if the trains could meet them, but it cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs to have trains so slow and so late.
    Another matter, which may seem unimportant but which I think important, is the cost of meals on trains. Most people in this country eat a high tea. They expect to pay say from 2s. 6d. to 5s. for it. If they are to pay 7s. 6d. it means that they are having an evening out. Very few people having an evening out would choose a railway train in which to indulge. Why cannot the railways put on fried fish and chips and toast, which the ordinary man expects and is willing to pay for, on a journey? Most of the travellers in this country are not very rich. We want to see the trains filled with travellers using the railways as a matter of course, not looking upon them as a luxury.
    8.36 p.m.
    Captain Robert Ryder: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) mentioned the question of dirt on trains to Cambridge. I do not wish to get involved in any dispute between the universities in this matter, but I would like to recall that earlier in the debate Mr. Speaker ruled that although we are discussing the first Amendment on the Order Paper we could also speak on the Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It is to that that I should like to address my remarks——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I might save the hon. and gallant Member a little trouble. The points he wishes to raise are not in the Bill at all, and even on this Amendment he could not deal with London.
    Captain Ryder: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have not disclosed what is in my mind.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I heard the original Ruling and I thought the hon. and gallant Member was rather persistent and that I might help him a little.
    Captain Ryder: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The point I wish to raise is that this Private
    1394
    Bill refers to a very considerable number of public works and it seems to me that, taking all in all, it will involve quite a considerable sum of money. What is concerning me is where the money is to come from. It seems to me that there might be some temptation perhaps to expend some of the earnings of that part of the Commission's undertaking allocated to the London Transport Executive and I make no apology for raising the question as to whether or not the London Transport Executive should in any way suffer any disadvantage from this Bill.
    London Transport does, in any case, suffer from a number of disadvantages of a very general nature which, I feel, should be taken into consideration before we consider this Bill and the various measures proposed in it. For instance, it is almost a monopoly—I think practically the only passenger transport monopoly in the whole country. And, since it was placed under the overall umbrella of the British Transport Commission, this seems to have an unfortunate effect as far as the London travelling public are concerned——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am very reluctant to stop the hon. and gallant Member, but it is perfectly clear that London does not come under the Bill and it is not to be discussed.
    Captain Ryder: I am grateful for your Ruling.
    If I may go on to the next question, in Clause 15 special reference is made to the footway between Villiers Street and Craven Street. I am not clear whether this will affect the Southern Region or whether it affects those parts of the Transport Commission's activities which come under the London Transport Executive. It may be that they have joint responsibility.
    In Clause 42, general reference is made to all the Railway Acts, past, present and future. Some of those might quite well affect the London Transport Executive. It was with that in mind I was addressing myself to some of the problems affecting London transport. Unlike the rest of the country, London receives no advantage from the carriage of freight. One may point to many branch lines in the country which are virtually subsidised out of increased freight charges. That

    1395
    does not apply to the London area. A great deal of freight originates from London——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have warned the hon. and gallant Gentleman several times that he cannot talk about London. If he persists in doing so, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I, with respect, make a comment on that and ask for your guidance? In the Fifth Schedule to the Bill mention is made of the rural district of Hendon and there are various other areas mentioned which come within the London Transport system. Under those circumstances, I should have thought that it would be in order to discuss it.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I heard the Ruling given from the Chair at seven o'clock, when it was made perfectly clear that the London Transport Executive could not be discussed.
    Captain Ryder: With respect, it is not clear in the Bill where the money is to come from and that is why I was trying to refer to the question of London transport. There is a great deal of misgiving in this matter. I regret if I have gone outside the Ruling on the matter, but I thought Mr. Speaker had stated that a previous Ruling had been given that matters of general interest could be discussed. I thought the Ruling was given on the last British Transport Commission Act.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That deals entirely with a different matter and not with the Bill now before us. That was on 8th May, 1951.
    Captain Ryder: But this Bill refers, in Clause 42, to all the other Railway Acts and I find myself in some difficulty——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I find myself in no difficulty.
    Captain Ryder: Reference is made to a number of specific works which lie within the London area. I should have thought that before we can give serious consideration to those the general background of the difficulties facing London transport was a very material consideration. I am wondering whether, on consideration of that, I may be allowed——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I have made myself as clear as I can. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was ruled out of order. I do not make the rules of order. I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Member to continue on those lines.
    Captain Ryder: Those who are vitally affected by these things will, I think, find the rules of the House very frustrating for them.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be, but they are the rules of the House and must be carried out.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Percy Collick: I wish I could believe that the purpose of hon. Gentlemen opposite in putting down the Amendment was primarily to call attention to what they regard as certain weaknesses in the organisation of the British Transport Commission's undertakings. I got the impression from the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) that possibly the primary motive of hon. Gentlemen opposite was to seek this opportunity to direct a few more gibes at a public undertaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I regret that that should be so. Hon. Gentlemen opposite deny it, but I do not recall an occasion when I have heard very much criticism from them about any of the failings of private enterprise undertakings.
    However, whenever we get an occasion of this kind, hon. Gentlemen opposite are not slow to take the opportunity to vent their feelings against public enterprises. The obligation lies clearly upon hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they have matters of complaint such as those voiced in this House tonight, to give chapter and verse for them. I was pleased to find from the introductory remarks of the hon. and gallant Member that apparently the Commission had invited him to sustain the point of his complaint so that proper inquiries could be made. That was indeed pleasing.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted extensively from a recent report of the Ministry of Transport inspecting officer on certain accidents which had occurred on British Railways. I was pleased to hear him cite that report. I invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman to

    1397
    pursue his studies a little further. He might well ask himself how it comes about that there are Ministry of Transport inquiries into railway accidents. It is a most interesting history.
    In the old days, when the railways were under private enterprise, the so-called virtues of which are always being acclaimed, the rate of accident and the rate of personal injury to railway servants was so high that the consequent public outcry eventually gave rise to the institution of what we now call inspecting officers of railways, whose job it is to investigate railway accidents. This has played a great part in the safety of British railways.
    It so happens that I have perhaps attended as many Ministry of Transport inquiries into railway accidents as anybody in this House. The hon. and gallant Member can take it from me that the report of the inspecting officer would be closely studied by all responsible railway operating superintendents and by rankand-file railwaymen with the object of taking such steps as may be necessary to avoid any possibility of a recurrence of the accident in question. I pay my compliment to inspecting officers. Their painstaking care in investigating railway accidents has brought about a high standard of regard for what they have to say. The result is that both among rankand-file railwaymen and officers, close attention is give to these reports with the object of making our railways safer.
    It may be largely due to our method of investigating railway accidents in this way that the record of safety on British Railways is higher than that of any other railway in the world. We ought to be proud of that. It is wrong for the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) to give the idea, even by way of inference, that the safety record of British Railways is deteriorating. If he investigates the matter, I do not think that his suggestion will be sustained. I shall listen to see if the Minister gives any support to the contention of his hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone.
    Now that the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire is in his place, I should like to take the opportunity of telling him that his history is a little inaccurate. When he said that railway engines were cleaned until the outbreak of war, he was utterly wrong.
    1398
    The history of the matter is this, and it does not reflect very creditably on private enterprise. When a certain gentleman took control of a very big railway system in this country under private enterprise, in the days when the railways were having the struggle which has become proverbial in the last 20 years, that gentleman regarded railway engine cleaning as a luxury, and it was his deliberate act of policy, in regarding engine cleaning as a luxury, that caused the locomotives working on British railways to deteriorate into the filthy condition in which many of them are at the moment.
    There is no one who would be more pleased than I would be for anything which the Minister or hon. Gentlemen opposite can do to improve the cleanliness of British locomotives, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) is not in his place, because, for the first time, in this debate he said something with which I agree, and that is very remarkable. He drew the attention of the Minister to his opinion that one reason there was a dearth of engine cleaners was because of what he regarded as a lack of differential in the rates of pay between engine cleaners and other grades of workers up to that of locomotive engineman, and I quite agree. Very much more has to be done to improve the rates of pay and the conditions of these men if the locomotive staff are to be maintained in adequate numbers
    Now I come to this question of safety. On British Railways today, more than 24,000 trains run every day, excluding goods trains, and I suppose we should be in an El Dorado if it were not possible among these 24,000 trains to find one or two which were subject to complaint about this, that or something else. Of course, there are such trains, but what I want to draw attention to is this: British Railways carry three million passengers every day, or 1,000 million passengers a year, and, in a recent year since the railways have been nationalised, all those millions of passengers were carried on British Railways in one year without a single passenger casualty. Is not that a record of which we ought to be proud? The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) looks at me with such concern that I rather imagine the news has come as a shock to him.
    Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: Does the figure which the hon. Gentleman has just given include passengers on the London Passenger Transport undertaking or not?
    Mr. Collick: It includes passengers on the four main line groups—what were the old main line groups which have now become British Railways; and, in 1950, not one single passenger's life was lost in all the millions who were carried. Surely, that is something of which we ought to be proud? I am sorry that this simple fact has not been broadcast and made more generally known. I think that when we have a record like that, of which we ought to be proud, it should be the job of those responsible to shout it from the housetops, because that great record has only been made possible largely because of the high degree of skill inherent in the operating railwaymen of British Railways.
    Therefore, my answer to one of the charges made from the benches opposite is that, judged by that standard, there has been no deterioration in the safety record of British Railways. That is not to say, however, that everything is as it should be or that there is no cause for complaint. Certainly not. There is, for instance, the complaint to which I referred a moment ago, namely, the condition of British locomotives. I long to see the day when the locomotives on British Railways are as spotlessly clean as were, I imagine, in his day the buttons of the soldiers of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Service.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: They could not do better.
    Mr. Collick: Of course, we have not so many men to do it, for one thing——
    Mr. Sparks: And not so much time to spend on it either.
    Mr. Collick: Yes, but I believe it would be a very great advantage if British locomotives were maintained in a cleaner condition. Nevertheless, I was a little surprised when I heard one hon. Member say that French locomotives are so much cleaner than ours. That is not quite my experience, and I do not know from where the hon. Member found his examples.
    1400
    I hope I have established to the satisfaction of the House that there has been no diminution in safety on British Railways. Railway staffs are very proud of their safety record, and I hope they will always be able to be so. If the facts remain as they have been recently, particularly in the year to which I referred, we shall certainly have nothing to apologise for in matters of safety.
    8.58 p.m.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Quite frankly, I do not think it leads to public enlightenment and understanding when in these debates on transport which we have from time to time Members of the Labour Party, with perhaps an exception here and there, concentrate solely on defending the public monopoly in transport with which this country has been landed.
    The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) devoted the whole of his speech of 20 minutes or so to this. He leapt to the defence of the British Transport Commission; he was eager to support every minutiæ of its administration, not offering the House any counsel, guidance or advice and not attempting to put, on behalf of the Labour Party, the thoughts that really must assail them after five years of nationalisation of transport. Instead, bound by great ideological conflict, he still felt it needful to ape the functions of my right hon. Friend in defending the Commission and everything they do.
    I was rather glad that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), after the usual period of ideological defence, allowed himself to toy with the idea that British locomotives were dirty and needed a little cleaning. I wish that the hon. Member for Enfield, East, who spoke officially for the Labour Party, had been able to give the House much more counsel than he, in fact, did. Let us hope that as time goes on and as we draw away from this great Act of five or six years ago, we shall begin to hear from the representatives of the people on both sides of the House, on behalf of the consumer and the travelling public, some criticism and some interesting observations about the Commission.
    After all, the Commission have a vast array of officials and of public relations officers and they have every opportunity to put out in the Press, and by the normal means of publishing, the facts of their

    1401
    own case. They have a great body of documents which pour out every year. When I listened to the hon. Member for Enfield, East I thought that I might just as well have spent the time reading the defence which the Commission put up on their own behalf, rather more ably than he did.
    I come now to some of the cogent observations made in this debate. It is not that we on this side of the House insist on criticism of the Transport Commission while hon. Members on the other side insist on defence. We on this side acknowledge the great advances made since the war by the Transport Commission, partly due to the natural circumstances that have arisen since the war of greater ability all round, both in public and private enterprise, to ameliorate conditions and to improve service, and partly due to the real efforts which have been made by certain high officials of the Commission and the staff all the way down the service.
    We are conscious, for example, of the return of courtesy on the railways, the agreeable manner in which the traveller is now greeted by railway staffs, on the station, in the guards van and in the restaurant car. That is a remarkable fact and we all acknowledge it. It contributes a great deal to the comfort of the travelling public and helps their interests.
    A good deal has been said about the conditions of the railways, about the need for clean locomotives, carriages, and so on. I was rather struck with what my hon. Friend—if I may so call him—the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said about the over-riding need that the Transport Commission must make ends meet. They must match their revenue with their out-goings. It may be that now we have passed away from the days of monopoly of the railways and are seeing the railways being subjected to fierce competition from the road and air, we may not get back to the standard of service all round which the railways were able to give in the good old days. Those were the days of spick and span locomotives, richly upholstered coaches, lines without a blade of grass growing between the tracks, and so on.
    On the other hand, if, by force majeure, there is exerted upon the Commission. by virtue of the travelling public
    1402
    moving to other fields, the necessity to economise, one hopes that the Commission will direct their economies consciously into those branches of railway administration which do not impinge upon the interests and desires of the travelling public. We must have clean locomotives. After all, we have clean coaches in which to travel on the roads. We must have clean seating accommodation, though it may not be of the order that it was in the old days.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) recalled the days of elaborately upholstered third and first-class coaches. I do not say that in modern conditions we must look to the sort of bare seating accommodation which is provided on some 'buses on the roads today. I do not say that our circumstances are such that we must go to the French and the Germans for our experience and travel on hard wooden seats for hours and hours in the course of a day, as continentals so often have to do. But we must keep that thought, at any rate, in our minds.
    Obviously, fitments and lavatories are things that must be kept in good condition if the public are not to be driven from the railways and adopt alternative forms of travel. The stations, too, ought to be cleaned and brightened up. We might occasionally be given coal fires in the railway waiting rooms. We might be given rather more agreeable service in some of the railway station restaurants. I suggest that there is a very marked difference between the courtesy and comfort in the travelling restaurants and the appalling conditions and the slovenly service that we often find in the railway station tea rooms, which are equal to the worst of the tea shops to be found in the meaner streets of our great cities.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Give an instance.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I will tell the House of an experience I had. It was at Basingstoke. I walked into the tea room on the station there one day about two years ago. My train, an important one, was stopping there for a few minutes and I wanted a cup of tea. I admit that Basingstoke is a station where trains stop repeatedly and one cannot expect the attendants to be on the qui vive and serving all the time, but there was

    1403
    absolutely no sign of any preparation of any kind for the stopping at that station of that rather important train.
    On the Continent, when a train rolls into a station the whole station staff are quick and alive with a desire to serve. I do not want to exaggerate this matter. I see the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) looking at me rather quizically. I am not suggesting that the whole station staff should turn out whenever a train stops there. Conditions do not permit of that, and a comparison with the Continental stations is not a true one; but, at any rate, there should be some indication of a desire on the part of the waitresses in the tea rooms to have a cup of tea ready for those who leap out of the train to get one.
    To return to the main point that I was making, let us keep the economies for those branches of railway administration which do not impinge directly upon the public. The railways might save money by loosening up on the overtidy manner in which they keep the permanent way. Why should not the permanent way resemble the main roads of England? Whoever thought of putting an elaborate fence along some of the great main roads running through the Scottish moors?
    Since nationalisation the old private character of the railways has gone. In the old days these elaborate fences had to be erected to demarcate the property. But now all that has passed and there is no reason for those fences or for the carefully tended permanent way with men going up and down to make sure that not a blade of grass grows between the tracks [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is all very well for hon. Members to say, "Oh," but we on these benches are anxious that the Transport Commission should economise. Hon. Members opposite are not. They are anxious that public money should continue to be poured into the Commission. They are anxious that the fares should be high and, if there are any cumulative losses, that the State should come in and subvene. That is their whole philosophy and belief. Therefore. I do not accept their criticisms on the particular point I was trying to make.
    Mr. Collick: The hon. Gentleman complains that the railways in the Highlands
    1404
    are fenced. Does not he realise that they are fenced to protect the deer which belong to his hon. Friends and prevent them from straying on to the railway lines?
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am not suggesting that we should dispense with fences when the main line passes through the rural part of the country, where there is intensive dairy farming and where there are many herds. Of course the livestock must be protected; but I simply cannot understand why we should protect railway property so much more thoroughly than we protect the public roads. The railways should endeavour to make that kind of economy.
    On the important question of accidents, which was raised with such force by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire, I happened to be present in the Royal Scot which was travelling north at the time of the Weedon accident, and which was held up by a signal with half a minute to spare. I subsequently spent three hours on the track and sent in a report of what took place to the right hon. Gentleman who was then Minister of Transport. I do not want to dwell on that occasion; it is a very unhappy one in my memory. But, naturally, I was very much the more concerned to read the report which ultimately disclosed the cause of the accident.
    As my hon. and gallant Friend stated, the accident occurred because a fitter had not taken sufficient care about the provision of split-pins for the leading bogies of the locomotive. The case was absolutely established and the guilt—if one can call it that—attached to one single man. I am not suggesting that a criminal charge should lie against a man in such circumstances, or that those people in the railway administration who are concerned up to the last minute with urgent safety considerations should work from hour to hour and day to day with the thought of policemen looking over their shoulders in case they make a fundamental mistake. That would be intolerable and would inhibit their work.
    But nothing was said about what was done in connection with this man. For all I know he is still in the same job—forgiven. Is that right? Ought not the public to be assured that that man has really forfeited the right to rise to the top of the profession in that particular aspect of his

    1405
    work? Ought not we to be told that disciplinary measures have been taken against him and that he has been moved to another part of the railway administration where no question of any repetition of this occurrence can arise? We were told nothing about this. I urge my right hon. Friend and the Commission to satisfy the public, after these accidents, that appropriate disciplinary action has been taken in respect of those men whose connection with these events has been so directly established.
    My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) gave some most alarming statistics about the course of affairs upon the railways, in which the administration of British Railways showed up badly in terms of trends upon the Continent. This is part of a very much wider question. It affects not only the railways but, as we shall soon see, it affects the coal mines, too. It is a problem which will have to be tackled by the House: we cannot escape it.
    It is a problem, ultimately, of the very superior conditions which have been accorded to labour. How superior they have become occasionally strikes one very forcibly. The other day I took a meal in the restaurant car of a train on the Southern Region and I was told by the head steward that some of his men in that car were working only five days a fortnight, such was their roster of duties. For the rest of the time they had nothing to do; they were sent home. An old lady in the village street said to one man when he returned on a Tuesday night to spend a few days there before going back to duty, "What! You here again? Why are you not working?"
    That is the kind of thing which I mean. These statistics which my hon. Friend gave directly derive from that sort of cause. It is a problem of very great significance which the House must face bravely and resolutely in the coming months. I am perfectly certain that we shall face it and that in doing so we shall perform a service of great importance not only for the railways and the coal mines but for the whole of the productivity of this great country of ours. Unless it is tackled we shall never hold our own against those countries which are producing the impressive results in power, energy and purpose as shown up by the statistics we have been given tonight.
    9.17 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Champion: I am bound to agree with those who have used this opportunity to raise points of grievance against a great undertaking, for I believe it right that this House from time to time should take such opportunities as occur to examine these great undertakings, to point to their deficiencies and to endeavour to get them put right. It is true that all great undertakings—undertakings of this character at any rate—are fair game for the critic. The Post Office has been in that position, and still is, and certainly it is the position of the nationalised railways.
    It is right, too, that we should use these opportunities to bring to the notice of responsible people things about which we have grave doubts; but it is also right, in the interest of those undertakings, that some points in their favour should also be made clear. I do not agree that, if some of my hon. Friends say some things which they regard as being in defence of this great nationalised industry, they are undertaking what the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) calls an ideological function. They are doing something which I think the circumstances justify.
    For example, if we can educate some hon. Members opposite. or even some hon. Members on this side of the House, about the way in which these undertakings are run, it is our job to do so. I can very well remember taking some part in educating the noble Lord into understanding something which I thought was common knowledge throughout the country—that most railway engines have only one fireman. He was then advising the House that the time had come to take away the second fireman from steam engines. That is the sort of way in which we can educate the noble Lord a little, and indeed all hon. Members opposite, on some of these points. which I think are important.
    I was interested in the points made by the noble Lord, and I certainly agree with him that we should not necessarily follow the Continental railways in the standard of some of the facilities which they provide for the travelling public. For example, I do not really want to undertake any lengthy journeys again on the hard seats of some of the French railways. He said that we could carry

    1407
    the recollection of those seats in our minds. I must admit that I carry them in an entirely different part of my anatomy.
    I do not think that anybody would make any pretence that we had reached perfection on the railways. Of course, we have not arrived at perfection, and that is why it is right, as I said before, that we should call attention to the deficiencies of these undertakings in debates of this sort. What we have to remember, however, in fairness to those runing the railways at the present time, is that the railways have for such a long time been starved of the capital expenditure necessary to bring them up to date.
    The Act of 1921 said that the standard revenue should be some £52 million per annum. The railways never made that amount on their capital, and, as a result, they were quite unable to raise sufficient capital to bring the undertaking up to the condition in which it certainly should have been. It is true that the 1935 Act did help to some degree by guaranteeing a loan of £29½ million, but that was never enough, and in the "square deal" agitation we had shortly before the war we did find railway directors saying, as a result of the failure to raise capital, and of the impossibility of remunerating capital:
    "It has become impossible to raise new capital on reasonable terms, and the development of important railway services is hampered as a result."
    How true that is is known to every hon. Member in this House. The very fact that we were not able to do the things we wanted to do between the two wars has resulted in many of the difficulties which we are facing today. I like the story of what would be the position if her late lamented Majesty, Queen Victoria, came back to this earth again and had to undertake the journey from Buckingham Palace to Sandringham.
    I can well imagine she would be staggered at what she would see—first of all at the difference in the London streets and in the buildings she would have to pass on her way to the station; but I can well imagine that once she arrived at Liverpool Street immediately there would be something which she would recognise, understand and know. There would be something which she knew in
    1408
    her day, which was a part of her life. Indeed, it would be true, I think, to say that once she got on the train and began to go towards Sandringham she would pass many of the Puffing Billies which were operating in the days when she travelled, and she might touch the arm of her dear Albert, and say, "Ah, this reminds me of our honeymoon." It is a fact that much of the railway undertaking was never brought up to date, chiefly because of the inability to raise sufficient capital to do it.
    There was, of course, a piling up of arrears of maintenance during the period from 1939 right down to 1950; and, as a result, it is necessary for the trains to travel at a slower rate today than the trains went on some of the best lines at the end of the last century. We run our trains slower today than at that time very largely as a result of the arrears of maintenance that have piled up during the years 1939 to 1950. That leaves out of account the total suspension of major capital work. Wherever we look we find engines, stations, wagons, coaches, signalling apparatus, etc., telling the same story.
    The British Transport Commission's Report for 1951 states in this connection—although the noble Lord thinks it is wrong to quote the Report, but I think it right to do so on this occasion—
    "In the main, assets are being patched rather than replaced and funds accumulated in respect of abnormal maintenance are being spent on repairs when it would be more economic to spend money on modern equipment."
    That was absolutely right. It is crazy to spend money in that way when we ought to be bringing the undertaking up-to-date.
    The biggest factor is shortage of steel, as it was during the war. The post-war difficulties came about as the result of this factor, which has been discussed from time to time in this House. The Report says that by the end of 1950, we were still about 3,000 passenger vehicles short of pre-war establishment.
    What have the Government to say about these difficulties? The Economic Survey, presented over the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:
    "In present conditions of steel shortage the railways will have to make substantial cuts in their programme for the replenishment of

    1409
    locomotives and rolling stock, and civil engineering works on stations, bridges and tunnels must also be severely restricted; there must be some curtailment of track renewal. The Manchester-Sheffield-Wath electrification scheme is the only major new traffic work in hand. Preliminary planning is starting on the electrification of the London-Tilbury-Southend line."
    That is in the Economic Survey of the Government for 1952, in which there is clear acknowledgment of the difficulties facing the railways as a result of the shortage of steel and the conditions which we have had since 1939, and indeed, in the inter-war years of capital shortage facing the railways.
    Some points were made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport in the debate which he answered on 21st March, 1952, when he said, referring to his hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell):
    "I must tell him with bluntness—and that is what he asked for—that the Ministry of Transport endorses the policy under which carriage construction is temporarily suspended in order to give first priority to track and wagons, and thus concentrate on railway safety and efficiency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2845.]
    He made a very good point. He was absolutely sound. We should concentrate in that way, but it adds to the difficulties of my friends who happen to be carriage cleaners on the railway in cleaning the old stock.
    I want to quote what the Parliamentary Secretary said on that day. So much is quotable and is a perfect answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and others who have called attention to deficiencies. I am bound to say that there are times when I feel ashamed of the stock I am getting into, but that very seldom happens on the longest runs. It is true of the branch lines on which I travel occasionally and on a few of the longer runs that the rolling stock is a disgrace to the undertaking. We must never be satisfied with the Railway Executive or British Transport Commission, who are going to take on this job, until we put that right.
    What are some of the difficulties? I have called attention to the fact that there are difficulties resulting from the age of the stock which the men are trying to clean. The fact that stock is being
    1410
    used much more intensively than previously means a much shorter period at the end of the journey for turn-round and cleaning. That is an important factor, as anyone who has had anything to do with railway cleaning operations will understand.
    Secondly, the Railway Executive have experienced great difficulty in getting sufficient cleaners to do this work. I am not talking about cleaners in the engine sheds but those carriage cleaning staff who clean the coaches for passenger use. It is a dirty, miserable job. Most people hate doing it and are only forced to do so in conditions of unemployment. Naturally, men will not do it willingly if they can get something else to do. It will be necessary for those in charge of our railways to look at the conditions under which this work is carried on and the rates at which it is remunerated.
    I have had the opportunity of visiting some of the places where this work is undertaken, and I find that carriage washing plants are being reconditioned and that additional carriage cleaning machines are being installed in a number of those places. The more there are installed the better will be our standard of maintenance. Indeed, only the day before yesterday, at Willesden, Lord Hurcomb opened the new depot there for the cleaning of our coaching stock. It was planned in 1938 but had to be put off during the war years and is only now coming into operation. What is happening at Willesden will have to happen in practically all our carriage cleaning depots throughout the entire railway system of the B.T.C.
    I shall not cover the points dealing with safety, etc., which have been so well covered by some of my hon. Friends and particularly the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick). Looking at the matter from the point of view of a railwayman, I think that dirty carriages are not solely the fault of the B.T.C., the Railway Executive or the men who clean them. There has been a shocking deterioration in the use of carriages by the travelling public, and that is something for which we all bear some responsibility. In the same way, I hate to see what is happening in our parks and our countryside, which are being covered with the litter of the people who

    1411
    use this lovely country of ours. Those who use our carriages could help the cleaners and everyone concerned enormously if they would pay some little regard to decency of use; if they used them rather as I treat my own living room at home, particularly when my wife has her eye on me.
    The points which have been raised today are of some substance. It is right that from time to time we should examine the work of these undertakings, and I hope that, as a result of our discussion, we shall find carrying us about the country a better undertaking than we happen to have at the moment, good though it be.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lennox-Boyd.
    Major Sydney Markham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I draw your attention to the fact that I have tried in every way possible to bring to your notice the fact that I have been here all the evening but have not been called? Might I, on a point of order, ask you whether it is not for you a matter of great personal regret that you have not been able to call upon the hon. Member for Buckingham this evening?
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that if every hon. Member who was unfortunate enough not to be called in a debate of this sort rose to a point of order our debates would be inordinately protracted. It is a great disappointment to the Chair not to be able to call every hon. Member, but that is inevitable. If the hon. and gallant Member is disappointed, he might console himself by asking himself whom the Chair should not have called in order to call him.
    Major Markham: Do I take it, Mr. Speaker, that that is an invitation to say what we think on those lines?
    Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. and gallant Member cannot do that.
    9.35 p.m.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): If it is any satisfaction to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham), I should like to associate myself with the regret felt by Mr. Speaker. In my case, I feel it as a neighbour of his. I am sorry that we have not been able to hear what he would have to say from his
    1412
    knowledge of the activities at Wolverton and Bletchley, of which he is such a stalwart representative in the House.
    We must all agree that this has been a most interesting debate. I feel that it could not have been concluded more happily than by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), who speaks with expert knowledge of the great railway industry and who never speaks in the House without getting support and understanding from both sides.
    The Bill has been presented with the consent of the Minister under Section 9 of the 1947 Transport Act. I stand in a rather unusual relationship to it. The Bill seeks works, lands and miscellaneous powers for the Commission, similar to those contained in previous Commission Bills in the last four Sessions. There is, however, one considerable difference, and it is a difference in which I confess I rejoice, not because he himself cannot take part but because, being Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is now firmly established as a member of the Government. Looking over the past records of similar Bills, I see that the first speech made in 1949, 1950 and 1951 was by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
    The debate has followed the precedent which was established long ago, that a whole field of activities should be open for discussion and scrutiny when railway Bills are presented to Parliament. I was glad that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) said he thought that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and his hon. Friend had moved their Amendment in a restrained and sensible form. I suspected, none the less, in the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), some resentment that any criticism at all of the Commission should come from the benches in this House.
    In the old days when railway Bills came before Parliament, the railway system and the railway directors were frequently criticised from both sides of the House and I think it would be rather a pity if we should drift now into some new conception of Parliamentary responsibility towards Bills of this kind. I share

    1413
    the view of my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) that it would be a good thing if both sides of the House could approach Bills of this kind quite objectively.
    When told it would be my function to pilot the Bill through the House, I was very interested to compare the situation with some of the problems and situations which existed in previous years. We are now discussing a Bill of the British Transport Commission. When, up to nationalisation, a large number of private railway Bills were introduced in the House of Commons, it was suggested from time to time that they might be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That suggestion was made on one occasion by Mr. Asquith himself, and it was most enthusiastically endorsed by a great friend of many of us, the late Josiah Wedgwood, who said that this would provide no more legislative sops for the master side. Now the master side has changed; today, the master side is the Transport Commission.
    I do not think that we shall again find a situation similar to that which arose on the railway Bill of 1913, when Mr. Keir Hardie opposed the Bill, though it provided for increases in wages, on the grounds that if it became law it would add considerably to the value of the railways and would increase the charge on the Treasury when the railways were eventually nationalised. We have moved into rather different waters and I hope there will now be the same objective approach as we had from our benches in those days and a somewhat different one from that which the Labour Party at that time used to provided.
    A large part of the Bill consists of standard Clauses, model Clauses, or Clauses which the Ministry of Transport, under various Governments, have suggested to railways or to the Transport Commission. No fewer than 25 of the 45 Clauses in this Bill follow that pattern. As you ruled earlier, Mr. Speaker, there is no reference—or virtually no reference—in the Bill to the activities of the London Transport Executive. I must congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) on the ingenuity he showed. He almost succeeded in getting a debate on London transport on a Bill which refers to London transport only, so far as I can
    1414
    see, in regard to a tip which the railways want at Rickmansworth and the alteration of a footpath which, some may say, belongs to the railways but which, I am advised, belongs to the Hotels Executive. My hon. and gallant Friend made a typically gallant effort.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) took occasion to wonder whether the inauguration of the Starlight Express had anything to do with the activities of British European Airways. I, as Minister responsible for both, would find it rather difficult to give him a clear answer, but I can assure him that competition between various forms of nationalised activity is very welcome to Her Majesty's Government. I am told that one of the first difficulties with which my predecessor had to contend was in answering a very angry railway advertiser who complained that opposite Euston Station British European Airways. put up a large notice saying, "Next time go by air." Only a week later he had to answer an equally angry airman who objected to the railway slogan, "If you have time to spare go by air." It is my task to try to reconcile these rather different elements.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire made one or two specific statements about the British Railways system. I agree with him that there is great room for improvement. I think that in that view I carry the Railway Executive and many tens of thousands of railwaymen with me. I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East of the distaste he feels at some of the archaic machinery with which the railways are still inevitably equipped. In fairness to the railways, we must remember the long years of war and the disheartening process of trying to clean what is, in some cases, virtually uncleanable. I would not share the interjection which came from the benches opposite that the dirt was pre-nationalisation. The dirt is not five years old, but it has been there for a long time.
    The task of cleaning a large number of vehicles which really should have been scrapped is infinitely disheartening, but nonetheless we recognise that there is much room for improvement, and in that improvement the travelling public, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East

    1415
    said, have a great responsibility as well. Those of us who travel a great deal round the country and use washing and other facilities in public houses, hotels and elsewhere, know that, despite hundreds of millions of pounds spent on education, people's habits of simple civilisation leave a great deal to be desired.
    The general decline in standards of behaviour is, of course, apparent on the railways as well as anywhere else. This, in part, explains, both from the angle of the customer and of the railways, some of the difficulties with which we are faced. The railways are now conducting a vigorous campaign to improve the appearance and general cleanliness of their rolling stock.
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East referred to the opening by Lord Hurcomb, on 9th March, of the maintenance and cleansing depot at Willesden. I hope that circumstances will allow that to be the first of a number of similar depots. The need to have more modern washing plant and facilities to offset the distasteful nature of this task is paramount and anything we can do to help in that field we will, I know, all co-operate in trying to do.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While realising that there is a shortage of cleaning staff, and so on, may I ask my right hon. Friend why carriages were painted a colour which requires the maximum amount of work to clean, far more than did the colour they were painted before?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hold no brief for the disappearance of the old regional railway colours, but perhaps I had better not become drawn into an argument of that kind, which is more suitable to the Bill which has just left the House. It may reassure the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East with his Victorian nostalgia, that I understand the Railway Executive have now restored antimacassars on all the first-class main line railway expresses.
    The Executive and the Commission have asked General Sir Daril Watson to conduct a special survey on how to improve the appearance of stations. Of the 6,000 stations on British railways some 4,400 will have been re-painted by the end of this year. The measure of the cost can be seen when I say that it
    1416
    will amount to £4 million. In the course of this year 900 will have been done at a cost of £1 million.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire referred to the report of Colonel MacMullen with regard to the Blea Moor accident, and he drew attention to a significant passage in that most excellent report. He was right to do so, just as Colonel MacMullen was absolutely right and carrying out his statutory duty in making such a report. I am glad to hear that all along the line those responsible are studying that report with the utmost care.
    Colonel MacMullen, with whom I had a talk at the time, was anxious that the report should not be regarded as a general reflection on the standards of safety of British Railways. I confess I share with my hon. and gallant Friend the feeling that the break-up of the old railway districts and the esprit de corps has to a certain extent detracted from pride in the job and the efficient running of the railway system.
    My hon. and gallant Friend also referred, in connection with safety, to inadequate maintenance. Here we must place responsibility fairly on the economic situation and the decision of Her Majesty's Government in 1952 in the case of carriages. There was no allocation of steel whatever available for carriage-building. We told the railways we wanted them to devote their money and resources to building wagons and maintaining tracks and not in building coaches.
    I hope that this year circumstances will improve, and we shall get a bigger figure with regard to carriages, but we cannot reach the total needed for some time yet. Even in the field of wagons we are still alarmingly short of our needs. Last year only 28,000 were built, which is 20,000 short of the building capacity in the railway workshops and private shops. Also, last year 30,000 of these wagons scheduled for break-up were still in use and 100,000 over-age were also still in use. I do not think, therefore, that we can blame the railways for the inadequate number of wagons. We are far short of the number of locomotives that we need.
    When we compare foreign statistics they should be regarded in the light of differing conditions We should remember that the net ton miles hauled per

    1417
    freight train hour was 595 in 1951; 543 in 1948 and 461 in 1938.
    I share the anxiety of my hon. and gallant Friend about punctuality. I understand that since I last heard from him the Perth train was punctual twice running. The remedy is a simple one. My hon. and gallant Friend should ask me a Question about that every Monday. Statistics have been given showing the high proportion of British Railway expresses and others that are within five minutes of their scheduled time. I know of the great anxiety of the leaders of this industry and of the workers to restore wherever possible the great records of the past, and having restored them, to maintain them.
    My hon. and gallant Friend also asked me a question of detail about Clause 16 and the difficulties those riding on horseback would suffer as a result of the provision of wicket gates and stiles. This is a matter which had not been brought to the attention of the Commission before. I understand that the British Horse Society have recently referred it to them. They are considering most carefully all the places where gates or stiles have been provided. They will do their best within the limits of their financial difficulties to meet this most desirable aim.
    My hon. and gallant Friend also asked about the acquisition of land by the railways. He asked me to pay special attention to the needs of agriculture in England and Scotland. Curiously enough, by and large, the railways sell more land than they buy. This is the declared policy of the Commission. However, I share the view of my hon. and gallant Friend that small incidents all over the country will add up to a large total in the long run. During the Committee stage of a Bill of this kind every separate area where agricultural land might be taken can be scrupulously examined and arguments on both sides can be heard.
    I wish to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken part in a most interesting debate. We are all anxious for the prosperity and the prestige of British Railways. We know that the consequences of war weigh heavily upon our people. Some of the difficulties that our country suffers do not exist in other European countries and elsewhere. Hon. Members who may be interested would do well to read the statement, which I
    1418
    would not be in order in quoting, made by my noble Friend Lord Selkirk in another place on 5th March about the very report from United Nations that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) quite properly quoted.
    Mr. Collick: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything about any progress in connection with locomotive cleaning, because that has a bearing on Colonel MacMullen's report.
    Mr. Ede: Is not Lord Selkirk a Member of the Government sitting in another place, and was not he making a pronouncement on behalf of the Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I may be wrong in this matter, but I do not think that it ranked as a pronouncement. Even if I were in order in reading it I should run out of time if I attempted to do so and then there would be a danger that the Commission would lose the Bill, which we are all anxious that they should get.
    In reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), I attempted to deal briefly with the subject he mentioned. It is very much in the mind of the Commission. I believe that facilities are continually improving. The need for cleanliness of locomotives as a main factor in inspection, without which no inspection can be worth while, is most clearly apprehended. I was saying that in another place a statement was made about some of the problems which exist for British Railways which do not exist elsewhere.
    One hon. Member mentioned the heavy deficit payments paid on French railways today. I do not want to get involved in comparisons between allied Powers and their various railway systems, but I can say of the railway system run by another great ally, Holland, that it has made the most spectacular progress since the war.
    I had a most interesting talk recently with the Director-General of the Netherlands State Railways. All who know him know of his quality and efficiency. I think that he would be the first to agree that out of the agony and devastation that came on many parts of Holland during the war, it has been possible to replan road and rail development from the start and in the light of modern conditions.

    1419
    That was perhaps the only worth-while result that came to her from her great ordeal during the war.
    I have found that there is a great brotherhood all over the world among railway men. We have a lot to teach each other and a lot to learn. There is nowhere in the United Kingdom where we can exchange ideas more happily and effectively than here. I know that the Commission will read the report of this debate with the utmost care. The many suggestions made will be taken fully into account when they plan their future policy.
    I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend, in the light of the various statements I have been able to make and of the form which the discussion has taken, will see fit to withdraw his Amendment, so that this Bill can have an unchallenged Second Reading this evening.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should like to add a word or two, if I am entitled to do so, but I do not want to talk the Bill out or anything like that.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to make a second speech, but he may rise to ask the leave of the House to withdraw his Amendment.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I was leading up to the point when I was intending to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment, but I was also hoping to be able to say that, from the Minister's statement and also through the helpful speeches of hon. Members on the other side, particularly that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), we have learned a great deal, and can now rest assured that the British Transport Commission will take note of what has been said. That, and the Minister's assurance to the House, are sufficient for me, and, I am sure, my other hon. Friends, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

  MEMBERS (TRAVELLING EXPENSES)
  9.57 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move,
  That, in the opinion of this House, the facilities now available to Members for free travel on certain journeys by public air services should include facilities, for the purpose of such journeys, for free travel between airport and air station in the coaches provided for persons using such services.
  This Motion is required to deal with a difficulty affecting the travelling facilities of hon. Members who travel to their homes or constituencies by air. Under a Resolution of the House of 15th November, 1945, which was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, air travel was included among the facilities available to hon. Members on the same basis as sea or rail travel. Last autumn, the airways corporations introduced a new system under which separate charges were made in respect of the buses which are available to take passengers from the air stations to the airports. It was found that the Resolution of the House of November, 1945, did not cover these separate charges to hon. Members for using these buses.
  You yourself, Mr. Speaker, were good enough to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to this difficulty and to indicate that a solution of it should be considered. This Motion is required to make it clear that such authority is now given. For the sake of people outside the House, I ought perhaps to make it clear that no new privilege is being given. All that is being done is to put the position back, as far as hon. Members are concerned, to that in which it was found before the airways corporations introduced the change in their system of charges.
  It may interest the House to know that it is hoped to bring the new arrangements into operation before the Easter Recess. In the interval, while the necessary administrative arrangements are being made by the authorities of the House, hon. Members travelling by the special coach services will be able to obtain, on application at the Fees Office, a refund

  1421
  of the cost of coach tickets certified to have been used on authorised air transport after tonight.
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: I think the Government have taken a wise decision in proposing this modification. By international agreement there has been an alteration in the method by which the airline authorities issue their tickets and this has been not only a handicap and inconvenience, but also an additional expense.
  I do not think that the general public quite realise the amount of expenses which Members of Parliament have to incur and which are not normally incurred by other people out of their income. This is a very great handicap to hon. Members, especially when it comes out of a salary which is approximately halved before it becomes a salary. Hon. Members have such a large number of expenses that even this concession will be both a convenience and a relief to all hon. Members, and I therefore hope that the House will agree to the Motion.
  I took part in the original arrangement to try to get air travel made available for hon. Members, because the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland of that day found that it was quite impossible for him to get home by the ordinary methods of travel during and at the end of the war. It is essential from the point of view of conducting Parliamentary business in these outlying areas that Members who use this form of travel should be treated equally with those who travel by rail.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I wish to thank the Financial Secretary and the Government for the speed with which they have moved in this matter and to pay tribute to the services of Mr. Speaker, who was of great assistance to the small self-constituted committee of those specially affected by this increase in air transport costs.
  We interviewed various authorities in the House and we received the utmost help. I also wish to pay tribute to the help we received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). He made it perfectly clear to those who had to consider
  1422
  the matter that the intention of the Government in which he was Chancellor of the Exchequer was that air transport should be free from terminal to terminal.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend will recollect that in replying to an intervention during the debate he pointed out that the Motion covered only public services. No one foresaw at that time that B.E.A. would farm out the road transport between airport and terminal to a private company and thereby put that part of the service completely outside the scope of the Motion. As I say, that difficulty has now been speedily overcome, and I wish to tender my thanks to all those who have helped in its removal.
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. Alan McKibbin: In welcoming this Motion on behalf of the Northern Ireland Members, most of whom have to travel back to their constituencies each week-end. I wish to say how glad 1 am that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made it clear that this was not a new concession which was being granted to us, but merely something which put us once again on a level with all the other hon. Members who enjoy the facility of free travel between London and their constituencies. Had it not been granted it would have been another injustice to Ireland.
  10.4 p.m.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: I also wish to thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and yourself, Mr. Speaker, for taking this interest in providing facilities for Members of the House. In fairness, however, I think it ought to be pointed out that those of us who travel by air save the Treasury £4 8s. Those hon. Members who book a sleeper incur a debt of 36s. each way and 16s. extra on a first-class return. In other words, air fare is only £8. I fly regularly, and besides saving my own time, I am glad to know that I save the country a little money as well.
  I hope now that the Treasury have been so generous as to put us on the same footing as railway travellers, the wives of Members will withdraw their objections to their husbands flying. Very few of us Members fly from Scotland. Indeed, in the last few months I have always been

  1423
  alone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) sometimes flies, but there have never been more than six of us using the planes. When we approach our friends who do not accompany us, they say that their wives have a strong objection to their adopting the modern method of travelling.
  I hope, therefore, that this arrangement will enable these wives to withdraw their objections or will enable their husbands to fly in the face of their wives and, at the same time, save the Treasury a little money.
  10.6 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I have no doubt that in future the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) will not only continue to perform a public service by flying, as she does, but probably will find it more enjoyable through having a large body of supporters in the aeroplane. As we continually accuse the Treasury of being mean, meagre and flint-hearted—though the money which they save is really our own—on this occasion, although it has been pointed out that they are not giving away any money, they are at least not standing in the way. They have made no difficulties in this case and, therefore, we are given an opportunity to thank the Treasury for moving this mountain aside.
  I shall benefit very much from this concession and I am extremely grateful for it. I am glad to hear that it is an economy to fly, but I fear that as a result my constituents will have to suffer my presence more than they did in the days of travel by sea.
  10.8 p.m.
  Mr. John Taylor: Following the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge
  1424
  and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), I should like to say in defence of the wives of Members of Parliament that there are a good many of us who really prefer to fly. We have a liking for air travel, but we use the train because, oddly enough, it saves us time. We leave home on Sunday night, arrive here early on Monday morning for breakfast and are in the House at 8.30 a.m. before the cleaners have finished, and we do a full morning's work; whereas by air we would not arrive until 12.30 p.m. That is the chief reason we travel by train, though it is at a little more public expense.
  We use air travel frequently and our wives have no objection whatever to it. It never crosses their minds that it is more dangerous than surface travel. Apparently it is only Prime Ministers who think occasionally that air travel is more dangerous than surface travel. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Chief Whips."] I should like to express my appreciation of this action to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and to you, Mr. Speaker. I underline the point that it will save money to the Treasury, the taxpayer and the nation.
  10.9 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have made a quick mental calculation and I believe that since I came to this House I have heard 583 speeches from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, some of them bad, some of them indifferent. At last he has made a good speech. God bless him.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House, the facilities now available to Members for free travel on certain journeys by public air services should include facilities, for the purpose of such journeys, for free travel between airport and air station in the coaches provided for persons using such services.

  HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT, SCOTLAND
  10.10 p.m.
  Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Constructional Scheme No. 25) Confirmation Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 138), dated 30th January, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be annulled.
  I must apologise to the House for again addressing them, having had the privilege of doing so on earlier business, but as the business of the House is arranged it so happens that it is unavoidable. I will try to be brief.
  I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not opposed to electrical development in Scotland. Praying to annul the Order is the only course open to us; we cannot pray to amend or change it. We must pray to annul it, which very often gives the impression in the country that we are opposed to electrical development in Scotland. I well recall that some of us opposed the Tummel-Garry scheme in 1946 for reasons which had nothing to do with annulling it but because we wished to change it in certain respects. My hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Snadden) and I have suffered constantly from misrepresentation in that we are supposed to have opposed electrical development in Scotland, whereas we did nothing of the kind.
  I must declare a certain interest, though very slight, in the effects of this scheme, namely, that the River Earn, which flows alongside my home, may be affected either favourably or unfavourably—I cannot yet make out which—by the effects of this scheme. That so far is my only personal interest in the matter.
  Does our experience of previous schemes inspire confidence in results from the expenditure we have to make? I do not know, but I feel very certain that a scheme like this requires most careful consideration by the House before it is accepted. The scheme proposes to cover an area of roughly 1,600 square miles in one of the most lovely parts of Scotland, all of it in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire. There are to be seven new
  1426
  power stations, about 25 aqueducts, six dams and 15 to 20 reservoirs in this scheme.
  The first thing I want to know is what will be the effect on the water supplies of that area of Scotland if this scheme is carried into effect? What will be the effect on the water supplies to farms, towns and for purposes other than hydro-electricity? I have always pleaded since I came into the House in 1945 that there should be an overall consideration and examination of the potential water supplies of Scotland as a whole so that the proper proportions for hydro-electricity, town use, and so on can be established. That has never been done.
  We should realise that this scheme will use a vast amount of material, particularly cement and steel. I am not sure that that material could not be put to better use at this stage. The scheme will also take a large amount of efficient labour. Among the labourers concerned are highly expert tunnellers, a number of whom have come from the mines, where I understand there is a shortage of labour today. Is that the best use that could be made of them, or should those men be returned to the mines? Work on roads and on forestry, particularly in the devastated forestry areas, are two other points which spring to mind when we consider the use of the available labour.
  On the question of expenditure, the estimated sum was at first £15½ million, but as a result of Questions in the House we have learned that this has since been amended to about £18½ million. That is a very large sum of money. I do not care to anticipate what will be the total when this scheme is completed. If the other schemes which have been put into effect are taken into consideration the ultimate cost is going to be vastly greater.
  In view of the Chancellor's warning about capital investment, are we quite sure that at this stage we are justified in accepting a scheme costing £20 million or perhaps £30 million, judging from what has happened with regard to previous schemes? However desirable it may be, should it be given first priority at the present time? I can think of a vast scheme which is urgently needed for draining land which is liable to flooding in Scotland, which would probably cost £8 million, and would rescue or save anything up to a quarter of a million arable acres. The Highland roads——
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman tries to broaden the scope of this Order to include in his speech a lot of alternative uses for this money, he will be out of order.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I apologise. I was not going to dilate on the merits or demerits of those alternatives. I merely suggest that the alternatives are of greater importance today than they were previously.
  At the present time should this scheme have first priority for whatever amount of capital is available? We have given borrowing powers to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board up to £200 million, but whatever we may have given them in that respect, we should consider what is most desirable in the interests of Scotland and of Britain as a whole, and what can be done with the money available. It is on those grounds that I ask the House to consider this Motion, and to think well before deciding how this vast sum of money should be expended.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to second the Motion.
  In doing so, Mr. Speaker, I shall be scrupulously careful in endeavouring to keep within the very narrow rules of order of which you have kindly advised me. This Breadalbane proposal is the largest and most costly hydro-electric scheme that has yet been brought before this House. The question has often been asked as to why English Members are interested in this proposal. The reason is that a fuel and power undertaking of this magnitude is an essential part of our national fuel and power economy and is not an issue for consideration only in Scotland. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the capacity of the scheme is to be 88,500 kilowatts installed, to develop a catchment area of 186 square miles in Perthshire and Argyle, and I am informed that the scheme will take between five and seven years to complete.
  The cost of the scheme when first brought to this House was £15,103,000. As a result of a string of Parliamentary Questions which I felt obliged to ask in order to obtain more detailed information from the Secretary of State for Scotland—and he confirmed my worst suspicions in his answers—the fact has
  1428
  emerged that a margin of error of no less than 20 per cent. was made in the figure of cost that was shown for the Scheme in the Explanatory Memorandum.
  We have every reason to condemn a nationalised undertaking which makes an error of 20 per cent. in its estimates. On this occasion 20 per cent. is an amount in excess of £3 million. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recall that this is not the first occasion on which this sort of thing has happened. In 1946 a similar scheme was brought before the House in respect of the Loch Sloy hydro-electric installations. The estimate was £4,600,00. The cost to date—and the scheme has not yet been completed—is £9,250,000–100 per cent. more than the estimate. I therefore say that we should be much more careful in scrutinising these vast financial demands which are made by the nationalised undertakings.
  It is pertinent to observe that the cost per kilowatt installed in this Breadalbane project is £204, which compares with a figure of £68 for an orthodox steam or thermal power station. I will not develop that theme, Mr. Speaker, as you have ruled that it is out of order to discuss the merits of alternative investment, but, as I understand it, you have generously said that one may strike direct comparisons. I therefore say that three times the capital investment is required in this Breadalbane proposal for one kilowatt installed compared with steam plant.
  It may be argued that the Breadalbane works will last for 80 years—that is the period which the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board use for amortisation purposes—and that a thermal power station is amortised in its costs over a period of only 25 to 30 years. It is, therefore, fair to say that if the hvdro-electric station at Breadalbane is amortised over 80 years, whereas the Portobello thermal power house at Edinburgh is amortised over 25 to 30 years, the amortisation in pounds sterling per annum is equal in each case.
  It is also fair to point out that there is much ill-informed opinion in the national Press about the merits or otherwise of this Breadalbane scheme. The "Manchester Guardian." for instance, normally accurate in its reporting and

  1429
  pertinent in the observations which it makes, records this in one of its leading articles on page 6 today:
  "Once built, a hydro-electric station's running costs are low".
  They are nothing of the sort. Let the "Manchester Guardian" and all other national newspapers which spread this fallacious propaganda be condemned out of the mouth of the information officer of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board, for this is what he said on 29th January, 1952—and in making that statement he evidently had Breadalbane in mind:
  "The cost of production of present day hydro-electric schemes are on an average about 15 per cent. cheaper than steam schemes. On the other hand, the cost of transmission and distribution is heavier in the Board's area because of the distances involved. Therefore, in the final equation the cost of electricity to the consumer as between steam and hydro areas are the same."
  Mr. Arthur Palmer Mr. Arthur Palmer (Cleveland) rose——
  Mr. Nabarro: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. Of course, the Breadalbane scheme is much more remote from the centres of consumption of electricity than a steam station, and one would, therefore, expect the distribution and transmission costs to be a good deal higher.
  To make a further point in connection with capital cost—because it is of immense importance—the Secretary of State for Scotland, in replying to just one more of my Parliamentary Questions on this issue, revealed that the Breadalbane scheme will have a plant load factor of only 40 per cent. The plant load factor means, in very simple terms, the extent to which the plant is employed out of its maximum potential capacity. It means, therefore, that the Breadalbane project will be employed for only 40 hours out of 100. A few miles away, just completed, is Britain's most modern power house, Portobello. The British Electricity Authority tell me that the load factor of that station has reached an all-time record for the United Kingdom of 80 per cent.—probably the highest in the world.
  That means that the capital employed in the Portobello thermal station is being employed as to 80 per cent. of its maximum potential—twice as great as will be
  1430
  the case at this hydro-electric proposal at Breadalbane. Therefore, not only is the cost per kilowatt installed of this Breadalbane project three times greater than that of a thermal station, but the employment of the capital in Breadalbane is only a half as active as in the case of the modem Portobello steam station, with the result, in the final equation, that the capital cost at Breadalbane is six times as great as that at a modern steam plant.
  Mr. Gilbert Longden: I am trying very hard to follow my hon. Friend, and I do not wish to seem to cavil because he is keeping us up at this hour, but is not his argument on this proposal related to a very much larger issue—the need for an overall fuel and power policy for this country?
  Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I am sure that I should incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, if I followed him in that intervention; but may I say shortly how heartily I agree with him—and so do more than 100 of my hon. Friends who have placed a Motion on the Notice Paper today to that effect.
  Mr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman is not, surely, suggesting that the load factor is something inherent in the character of the plant itself?
  Mr. Nabarro: I think I should be unnecessarily protracting this debate if I were to quote the precise definition of each technical term that I employ, but if the hon. Gentleman requires any guidance as to the precise definition of a plant load factor I refer him to page 263 of Appendix 47 of the British Electricity Authority's Report for the year ended 31st March, 1952.
  If I may return to my argument, I think it would be significant to read an announcement that appeared in our national newspapers only a few months ago. It was this:
  "In view of the recent restriction on capital investment the British Electricity Authority have found it necessary to review the relative priority of their various schemes, particularly those having a high capital expenditure compared with output of electricity. As a result, they have decided to defer the promotion of legislation which would enable them to carry out further hydro-electric development in North Wales."

  1431
  That appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Liverpool Post" on 4th November and 5th November, 1952. It is analogous to the problem that we have before us tonight—that of the relative application of capital investment in order to fulfil two essential features of a national fuel policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. G. Longden) intervened a moment ago on that theme.
  These Breadalbane proposals must, in my view, if they are to be successful, conform to two fundamental desiderata. For every £1 million of capital vested in the scheme there must be a maximum output of fuel and/or power at the earliest possible moment, and the maximum conservation of coal. The Breadalbane proposals conform to neither of those desirable objectives, and that is why I am so critical of them.
  The protagonists of the Breadalbane proposals and other similar hydro-electric schemes make three simple points in their support. They say, first, that this Breadalbane scheme will save coal. They say, second, that this Breadalbane scheme is designed as a contribution towards meeting the shortage of electricity. They say, third, that the Breadalbane scheme will lead to further electrification of the Highlands. All are disingenuous, all are quarter-truths and all neglect capital investment ratios, and I propose shortly to demolish all three arguments.
  The first argument is that they save coal. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in response to another of my Questions on this issue, said that the coal saving would be 180,000 tons a year. He based that on a conversion ratio, which I asked him to base it on, of 1.31 lb. per unit of electricity. That was the average conversion rate for all British Electricity Authority power stations during 1952. But if there were an alternative investment in a modern steam station instead of Breadalbane, we should be replacing very old power houses in Scotland which are working on a low thermal efficiency, and if the investment were made to replace those old stations. the coal saving would be twice as great as the saving inherent in the Breadalbane proposal.
  Secondly, on the same theme—I do not wish to get myself out of order by pursuing details or merits of alternative in-
  1432
  vestment; I merely wish to make bald statements of fact—if a similar investment were made in new carbonisation works in Scotland to replace old and low efficiency plants the coal saving would be twice as great as the coal saving in the Breadalbane proposal, if not more.
  As is so often said by Mr. Tom Johnston, the Chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, which has produced the pernicious Breadalbane scheme, why cannot capital investment be provided for the electrification of the Highland railway lines? I entirely agree with him, notably in respect of the 110 miles of line between Perth and Inverness, for the coal saving would show a much more handsome return on capital employed than the proposed investment in Breadalbane.
  The second argument is that the Breadalbane project will lead to an abatement of the electricity shortage. Of course it will. It will provide a small additional output of 88,500 kilowatts installed, but at six times the cost of an equivalent investment in a steam power station for each kilowatt installed.
  Sir William Darling: What is the nearest steam station which my hon. Friend could put against the one at Breadalbane, and what would be its economic cost?
  Mr. Nabarro: I shall pass to that point in one moment.
  Of course a scheme of the kind of that at Breadalbane will abate in small measure the electricity shortage, but at an uneconomically, if not an exorbitantly, high cost in terms of our precious capital investment monies. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the shortage of money for capital investment on every hand, and in nearly every speech heard in this House that is the factor mentioned as bedevilling our national recovery.
  Whether it is in the Colonies, to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies referred at the weekend, whether it is with regard to rural electrification, or whether it is with regard to the modernisation of the railways, it is always a shortage of capital investment moneys which is the principal source of our economic difficulties. I want to save much of that money by a more economic investment in electricity in Scotland.

  1433
  The third claim made is that this proposal will lead to further electrification of the Highlands. Nothing of the sort. The existing installed capacity of hydroelectric works in Scotland is more than adequate to meet the total electric demand of the Highland area. If every croft, farm, smallholding, commercial undertaking and factory and every railway line were fully electrified the existing hydro-electric plant installed would be adequate to meet that aggregate demand.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: What figures has the hon. Gentleman got to support that assumption?
  Mr. Nabarro: According to the protagonists of this scheme, Breadalbane is needed for the production of more electricity for export to the Lowlands. Here are the figures. The installed capacity of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is 560,000 kilowatts or 560 megawatts, of which 391,000 kilowatts or 391 megawatts is in water power and the remainder is in oil or steam-driven plant. The existing capacity has to cover a potential demand from about 400,000 consumers. If the hon. Gentleman works out for any part of the United Kingdom, Scotland included, what is the average aggregate demand from 400,000 consumers in a largely non-industrial area, he will find that it is infinitely less than the existing installed capacity in the North of Scotland.
  Mr. Manuel: This is most interesting to anyone who has a knowledge of the Highlands. Apparently the hon. Gentleman is indicating that he knows every railway gradient, the distance from the main supply to every croft, and so on. This area cannot be dealt with as we would deal with a normal area. The geography of the North of Scotland precludes that possibility. The hon. Gentleman has no right to make the gross and wild assumptions he is making in connection with a countryside he knows little or nothing about.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am in great difficulties——
  Mr. Manuel: I agree.
  Mr. Nabarro: —because there are narrow rules of order. I have consulted Mr. Speaker very closely in this matter. I am not allowed to quote copiously
  1434
  from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's Report. I am only allowed to deal with this Order. Therefore, I cannot pursue the intriguing argument of the hon. Gentleman. All I can say is that if he will base his calculations on any similar area in the United Kingdom of a largely non-industrial character and compare it with the installed capacity in the Highlands, he will form the same conclusion as I have stated.
  I do not suppose that there is a Member from that area who is not continually receiving complaints about the connection charges demanded by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I received a letter only two days ago from a farmer in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Snadden).
  Mr. Manuel: Why did he not write to his Member?
  Mr. Nabarro: He wrote to his Member and to me. He is faced with the position of having to guarantee £171 a year for seven years to secure a connection from the grid of the electricity supply system the cables of which actually run across land adjoining his farm. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) complained in an Adjournment debate recently of exactly the same sort of thing.
  What has happened in this case is that the figure of £171 per annum should be split among seven potential consumers, but the other six say that they cannot afford to participate. So the farmer is left with the prospect of having no electricity unless he guarantees nearly £1,200 over seven years. That is not the way to electrify the Highlands. A very high percentage of the power generated today, including the major part of that of the proposed Breadalbane scheme, is for export to the South and must be directly compared for purposes of capital cost and for production charges with operations by steam power.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear, if he is going to make statements of that sort, that the Hydro-Electric Board sells in bulk to customers in the South in order to finance many of the uneconomic schemes, not only in

  1435
  the Highlands, but in the islands of Orkney and Shetland, and so on?
  Mr. Nabarro: If the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board would devote its existing capacity to the unelectrified portions of the Highlands it could not only absorb the additional distribution costs, but do so more economically than by feeding additional power, in bulk, to the South. The hon. Member is accepting the argument, which is quite fallacious, put out by the Board to the contrary effect; it is not only fallacious but based on propaganda claims, and not on fact.
  Now may I state the final reason this expenditure is inadvisable. We are opposing an Order tonight which provides for capital works that are supposed to last for 80 years or more. Does any hon. Member really believe that in the year 2033 we shall want hydro-electric generation in Scotland, or elsewhere in the United Kingdom? I do not. Much scientific opinion is agreed that within 20 years, or perhaps just a little more, certain stations will be driven by atomic power and that, within 30 to 40 years there will be universality——
  Mr. M. MacMillan: I thought that the hon. Member wanted them driven by steam.
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member, in his ignorance, says I want them driven by steam. I want that for the next 30 years or so, because that is the period which will elapse, in the view of scientists, before we have atomic-driven turbo-alternators. That is not the opinion of a layman, but of an outstanding scientist.
  Sir John Cockcroft, Director of the Ministry of Supply atomic energy research establishment at Harwell, has spoken about it, and his view, and that of other eminent scientists should be considered. Sir John, lecturing to the Institution of Electrical Engineers on 8th January, 1953, said:
  "It seems to be fairly certain now that Large-scale nuclear power stations of the natural uranium type can be built within a time scale not very much different from that of a conventional power station. They will not be likely to work with the highest efficiency in the first place; but with reasonable efficiency they will be likely to produce power at a cost not much greater than that of existing power stations. That is all we can ask from the first experimental units."
  1436
  I have no doubt that a quarter of the way through the projected life of this Breadalbane scheme it will be rendered obsolescent by the advance of science, and the application of atomic energy.
  The £18 million—and I stress £18 million, because the figure of £15 million odd in the Order is a false one—is to be——
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I hope my hon. Friend will not say that. He has no justification for it; an explanation was given yesterday, and when an explanation is given to the House it is customary for the House to accept it.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry, but I do not accept that correction. If a figure is brought forward that contains an error of more than £3 million, then I say that that original figure is false. If my hon. Friend takes exception to that term, I will euphemistically describe it as "somewhat inaccurate." Three million pounds is a lot of money to me, and it ought to be much more so to a Scotsman. In my view, the Breadalbane £18 million project is economically undesirable, technically moribund and financially improvident.
  I have been severely restricted in my arguments against the project this evening by the rules of order of this House. I have not been able to adduce a comprehensive argument. I have been severely inhibited, but I hope that what I have said will have convinced many hon. Members that there is a sound argument against this large capital investment at this juncture.
  Let me make my personal position quite clear. I shall not vote against this Order tonight for the good reason that my argument has necessarily, by the rules of order, been of a very restricted and modest character. When the opportunity presents itself for a comprehensive debate upon all the economic and financial issues inherent in this vast hydro-electric expenditure in the North of Scotland I shall express my displeasure at the continuance of these schemes by voting against them in the Division Lobby.
  10.47 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: I am sure the House will be grateful that tonight the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has been modest in the time he

  1437
  has taken to put his point of view. On the last occasion when he delivered this same speech in the Scottish Grand Committee he took about 55 minutes. Therefore, the House will realise that the hon. Member has been rather more kind to us this evening than he was on that occasion.
  Tonight the hon. Member has been acting in the capacity of what the church calls "the Devil's advocate." Who the devil is I am not quite sure, but the hon. Member is the advocate for some devil against the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board, not only in regard to this scheme, but on every occasion. This is only one of the many schemes against which he has argued, and on every occasion he has tried to put a spoke in the wheel of the hydro-electric scheme. Therefore we can take this as one instance among many.
  I do not propose to enter into all the detailed argument put forward by the hon. Member because I take it that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will be able to refute quite clearly everything that he has said. This House, under a Coalition Government, enjoined this Hydro-Electric Board to develop the hydro-electric resources of the Highlands for the benefit of the whole country, with a special eye on the future of the Highlands.
  It was not a scheme intended solely for the benefit of the Highlands. It was realised from the very beginning, when Lord Cooper made a survey of the water resources, that they were resources to be used for the benefit of the whole country. Indeed, the Highlands can really only benefit from cheap electricity to the extent that the Hydro-Electric Board make a profit by selling electricity outside that area.
  Quite clearly, unless the Board can produce electricity more cheaply than it can be produced by steam they will not make a profit, and, therefore, will have no money with which to benefit the Highlands. The fact that up to now they have made a profit, and the fact that, as far as anyone can judge, they always will make a profit, is an indication that these schemes, from any normal calculations, are economic, in spite of all the fantastic figures the hon. Gentleman has produced to prove, as he thinks, the contrary.
  1438
  One of the things I should like the hon. Gentleman to try to find out is just exactly how much this country has lost by listening before the war to the type of argument which he has just put forward. If these schemes had been undertaken before the war, this country would have been having some of the cheapest electricity in the world. It was just on the same specious arguments that the House in those days was persuaded to reject the schemes; and, therefore, they were delayed until costs had increased, and they are still increasing.
  The fallacy of some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments must be quite clear to the House. The fact that the scheme costs more at the end than the estimate will not be a surprise to anyone who has anything to do with housing or other enterprises in this country.
  Mr. Nabarro: A Socialist enterprise, of course.
  Mr. Woodburn: If the hon. Gentleman can find any enterprise whose costs have not been rising, he is entitled to use it in his argument.
  Mr. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to justify and condone a rise in cost of 100 per cent. over a period of six years, when the cost of living and materials in that same period has risen only by one-fifth of that amount, and the other four-fifths represents a fallacious estimate?
  Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman hypnotises himself with figures, and when they are analysed they prove to be as fallacious as any of his arguments.
  Mr. Nabarro: Loch Sloy.
  Mr. Woodburn: Loch Sloy is a very valuable scheme, and if the hon. Gentleman inquires into the figures of it he would find how important it really was.
  There was one other fallacy in the hon. Gentleman's argument. In order to get his costs of electricity from hydro-electric schemes up to the level at which he could condemn them, he combined the cost of producing with the cost of distribution. Anyone who knows the Highlands knows that the costs of distribution are enormous compared with any other area, but if we established a steam station or an atomic energy station in the Highlands, the costs of distribution would be equally high. I think what anyone would

  1439
  be entitled to compare would be the production of electricity at a hydro-electric station with the production of electricity at some generating station built at the same time. That is the only legitimate argument, and if the hon. Gentleman uses it he will find that his figures are all "haywire."
  One of the problems in the production and distribution of electricity in this country is supplying the peak load. To keep a very valuable high pressure station like Portobello idle in order to supply the peak load for the next 80 years would be an enormous undertaking, whereas, once a hydro-electric station has been built, the cost of maintaining is practically nil. The water is not lost, and the more it lies idle, the more electricity is accumulated by the water. It is there to use on tap, and it can be drawn on without loss.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: That surely is one of the difficulties in the Highlands, because all these schemes are peak load schemes. As a result there is no electricity available for industry in the Highlands.
  Mr. Woodburn: I think the hon. Gentleman's point is absolutely mistaken. If any industry was prepared to start up in the Highlands there is no question about it getting electricity—and more cheaply than in any other part of the country.
  Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman must know that was not so at Inverness.
  Mr. Woodburn: It was not because of electricity. I had something to do with industry starting up there, and, with one exception, it had nothing to do with electricity that a project did not start. The scheme, that was to introduce an enormous organisation into the Highlands, was going to take nearly all the electricity. It was going to require very heavy subsidy for private enterprise from the nation to allow that industry to establish itself in the Highlands. The Government at that time were not prepared to provide a subsidy for an industry that would use up electricity which was costing the nation so much.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster usually argues that this country will never
  1440
  have the coal to supply all the electricity which it needs. I have heard him arguing—and I agree with him—that this country uses far less power per person than does the United States, and that the amount of energy available to manpower in this country is far too little. Neither he nor anyone else can say that, producing all the steam and hydro-electric stations that we can, we are likely to make up that lee-way.
  As to atomic power stations, the distribution costs are no different from what they are in the case of steam or electricity. The hon. Member will probably find that to establish an atomic station would cost far more than to establish a hydro-electric station.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish deliberately to misinterpret what I said. To repeat the words which I have used, atomic energy will largely replace normal means of generating power within 25 years, and probably universally shortly afterwards. That means that after 25 to 30 years hence, only one-third of the way through its life, this expensive project will be rendered obsolete.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): There is very little in this Order about atomic energy.
  Mr. Woodburn: I can only regret that any Scottish Members should have lent their names to the foolishness of the hon. Member for Kidderminster in his sabotaging attacks on hydro-electric schemes; and that those Members should come from the Highlands absolutely horrifies me.
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Could the right hon. Gentleman suggest any other way in which we could discuss the scheme in the House?
  Mr. Woodburn: I was speaking about the general situation. The hon. Member need not put the shoe on unless it fits him.
  What I deplore is the curious fact that at any time when any Government come along with a scheme to help the Highlands, some Highland Members find even more occasion to criticise it than do hon. Members from non-Scottish constituencies. I deplore that they should give encouragement to the destruction of this

  1441
  organisation that is building up electricity supplies in the Highlands.
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Could not it be interpreted as an indication that Highland Members take an interest in the scheme and want to ensure that it will in fact help the Highlands?
  Mr. Woodburn: It is for them to convince their constituents, but I think that Highland constituents are too intelligent to believe that story when the names of these hon. Members are put to every Motion put forward by the hon. Member for Kidderminster on this subject.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) said that he wanted to see more drainage work carried out. More drainage has been done by——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire was ruled out of order when he dealt with that.
  Mr. Woodburn: I should have thought that this Breadalbane scheme which we are discussing will drain a bigger area of the Highlands than has been done by anything in history.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: This drainage will not be drainage of good agricultural land. It is hill land. It would be out of order, however, to pursue that point.
  Mr. Woodburn: The Breadalbane scheme will drain the Highlands in such a way as to control all flooding. If flood waters are taken into the reservoirs they do not flood over the ground. Anyone who knows what a great area has been saved from flooding at Cannich by the Glen Affric hydro-electricity scheme will appreciate what the Breadalbane scheme will mean in drainage.
  If there is one thing more than another that the Highlands need it is roads. Never have such good roads been provided in outlying areas as those provided by the Hydro-Electric Board. In the Breadalbane area, Glen Lyon, and round about that area, there are no roads. There are places which are almost inaccessible, and in which, under this scheme of dams, roads will be provided. Thirdly, electricity is provided.
  1442
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster raised another fallacy. He said there were farms in the Highlands which could not get electricity without paying a charge. Has he ever inquired what happens in other parts of the country? Do farmers get electricity without charge in England, Wales, or South Scotland? They do not. If the Board are to make ends meet they cannot take electricity 100 miles to a farmer without asking for a contribution towards the cost.
  Mr. Nabarro: The only point I was making was that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board is perhaps just a little more iniquitous in its demands for capital cover than the British Electricity Authority, and that is saying a good deal.
  Mr. Woodburn: I think that the hon. Member is wrong in that. There is no doubt that this scheme will save coal, which is almost gold to the nation today. The hon. Gentleman talks as though the Highlands are to be always limited to a population of 400,000. The hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) has been canvassing in America to get someone to start industries in the Highlands. Even if we get a few Americans there new enterprises will lead to an increase in the population to some extent. The whole purpose of this development in the North of Scotland is to make it easier for people to live in the Highlands.
  If the hon. Member for Kidderminster, will look at the Forestry Commission's plan for the next 50 years, he will see that it is hoped that, with the development of forestry, the Highland population will rise steadily. In any case, Highlanders are not confined to the Highlands. Many of them work in the Lowlands. Electricity from the Highlands will not be grudged to the Lowlands, or to England, so long as a fair price is given to enable the Board to carry on with benefit to the Highlands. While we do not say that this scheme should not be examined, or that capital expenditure should not be carefully considered, we certainly do not agree that this scheme should be condemned for the rather fallacious arguments advanced in support of the Motion, with which I hope the House will not agree.
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I must make the usual apology of an English Member who dares—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the support of hon. Friends on this side of the House and will not apologise, but will just observe that where Kidderminster can go, Cleveland can follow.
  Mr. Nabarro: Follow is the word.
  Mr. Palmer: We can agree that we always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I enjoyed his speech this evening. Whether the humour of them is always intentional may be open to question. The hon. Member interests me because, as he knows, I am an electrical engineer. I do not know whether he is aware of it, but the hon. Member has achieved a certain reputation outside this House as a sort of Parliamentary enemy of electricity in general. I do not know why that is so. It is, perhaps a matter for investigation into his early childhood. Perhaps he was bitten by an electron.
  I take the view that the standard of living of a modern industrial community is bound to be measured in proportion to the success with which it develops and utilises—and I stress the word "utilises"—the electrical power resources of every kind which it possesses. I believe that electricity—and I should have thought this would have been common ground among normal sensible people—is the ideal means of removing darkness, dirt and needless physical toil from our lives.
  For that reason I regard this Motion tonight as essentially obscurantist and backward in intention. It is founded on a misunderstanding of the technical questions involved, as I shall try to show in a moment, and from the Scottish point of view it strikes at the entire conception, both technical and social, of the Cooper Report and the 1943 Act.
  I think it would be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in view of what has been allowed already—although I appreciate, with respect, that it is for you to judge—to make one or two observations on this matter of steam generation as against water-power generation of electricity. If we take the issue in the abstract, where there is abundant water power and favourable physical conditions there is no doubt about it—water wins.
  Mr. Nabarro Mr. Nabarro indicated assent.
  Mr. Palmer: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
  One can call to witness Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada and the United States. The United Kingdom is obviously different. Here we have large coal deposits, and our relatively small water power resources are concentrated in the main in the Scottish Highlands, but the point is that in view of the postwar scarcity of coal in relation to the demand, that is surely no reason why we should not develop every available kilowatt of hydro-electric power that does
  Mr. Nabarro: Surely the hon. Gentleman, as a trained electrical engineer, will have observed the merit of one part of my argument, which was that for an alternative investment of £1 million in replacing old low thermal efficiency steam stations we could save twice as much coal as by an investment of £1 million in a hydro-electric plant.
  Mr. Palmer: It is a question of taking the short-term view as against the long-term view, and I am trying to take the long-term view. That, to me, is the curious paradox of the views of the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I always thought, from listening to his speeches and reading some of them before I came back to the House, that he wanted the maximum conservation of our coal supplies. I do not think he has maintained consistency by his speech this evening.
  I appreciate the lateness of the hour and I do not wish to be tedious on the technical points, but I do think that the House would be trusting indeed to take the hon. Member for Kidderminster as an authority. It is well known that hydroelectric schemes are expensive on first cost as compared with thermal stations, but they undoubtedly show great savings later in running charges.
  In fact, it is largely a question of a balance of interest rates—and it is the present Government who push them up—against coal, labour and staffing costs. That is the issue, and the battle tends always to flow in favour of hydro-electricity as the years roll by; 80 years is the commonly accepted life of a hydroelectric scheme—at least, for the civil engineering works.

  1445
  Let me turn to a point that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster made much of. He seemed very wise on this matter of load factor. The outstanding advantage of hydroelectric stations is that they are economical when used to supply electricity systems with poor load factor. One of their advantages is that there are not the stand-by losses that we get with steam stations. A hydro-electric plant can be run up quickly indeed, and at short notice, and that means that fluctuations—sudden fluctuations—in load can be followed exactly. Hence, under conditions of poor load factor the advantage is with hydro-electric generation and not steam. Of course, it is the poor load factor conditions which are bound, on the whole, to exist in the Highlands.
  Mr. Nabarro Mr. Nabarro rose——
  Mr. Palmer: No. I cannot give way again. The hon. Gentleman will be fair. He will remember he allowed me to interrupt him just once, and now we are equal in advantage.
  The hon. Gentleman—and this seems to me to be his fundamental fallacy; and he is not, I say with great respect to him, an electrical engineer—speaks as if load factor were inherent in the characteristics of a power station. Well, of course, it is nothing of the kind. Thermal efficiency is certainly inherent in the characteristics of a steam power plant, but load factor is determined by external conditions. Portobello has, of course, an 80 per cent. load factor. So has Battersea probably. The reason is that both are run quite deliberately, in the system of operation, as the base load stations. The general load factor of the British electricity system as a whole, if it be averaged out, taking the three-shift stations with two-shift stations—is well under 50 per cent.——
  Mr. Nabarro: Very poor.
  Mr. Palmer: —and that really makes nonsense of his argument that inevitably the load factor of steam stations is in advance of the load factor of hydro-stations. I do not blame him for ignorance of this point, but he should not argue as though he understood it.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me after all. My argument was not in any
  1446
  way related to inherent power station problems. It was that an 80 per cent. load factor denoted twice as active an employment of the capital investment as only a 40 per cent. load factor at this hydro-electric works, and that is irrefutable.
  Mr. Palmer: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his further explanation.
  As I was saying, to me this issue is really an argument of short-term policy as against long-term policy—of short-term capital investment as against long-term capital investment; and I think that in the special circumstances of the Breadalbane scheme we should be right to take the long-term view, and I shall give one or two reasons why I think we are right. Britain is undoubtedly short of skilled engineers, technicians and workmen, particularly of the electrical kind, and this scheme, this very scheme we are discussing, alone will save 44 men as compared with a steam development.
  Britain also—and this is one of the hon. Gentleman's normal points—needs to save every possible ton of coal; this scheme alone will save 140,000 tons of coal per year, and that is not to be sneezed at. If we take the future hydroelectric development as proposed by the Board in the Highlands, by 1960 it is proposed to have installed altogether 1,000,000, if not more, kilowatts, and that will mean in terms of units a 3.250 million units output by 1960. By 1960 the coal saved by the operations of the Hydro-Electric Board will be 2 million tons per annum. Ultimately, assuming developments which some experts consider to be possible, the saving might be as much as 5 million tons per annum.
  On the question of mines manpower—the present shortage of miners obviously has a bearing on this question—this scheme will save 450 men in the mines. If I translate that figure into terms of future all-over hydro-electric development in Scotland, by 1960 we can save 6,000 men who would otherwise be employed in getting coal from the bowels of the earth.
  The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has a social responsibility to use electricity to increase the standard of living in the Highlands while at the same time preserving amenity and beauty as

  1447
  far as they can in everything they do. Nobody suggests that they are perfect, but they are succeeding admirably. Nobody would be so academic as to reduce this matter purely to a question of steam power as against water power. In this country it is normally a question of Hobson's choice—we must use steam power—but in the Highlands, as was argued in Lord Cooper's Report of 1943, hydro-electricity can obviously play a dominant part.
  It does not seem logical to oppose this particular project—and I think that this is something which Scottish Conservative Members should have in mind—without opposing every implication of the 1943 Act. If I wanted any proof of that I should read this paragraph from the Cooper Report, on page 30:
  "Once Parliament has determined as a matter of high policy that a series of schemes should be carried into execution for the benefit of the Highlands in the national advantage, and once the technical programme has been mapped out to the satisfaction of the appropriate authorities, it appears to us that vested interests, whether of property owners or of the coal industry—"
  or, one could say, the solid fuel industry—
  "or of the various unofficial organisations which have been in the habit of intervening in such proceedings, should no longer be permitted to oppose the policy thus determined upon or to delay, or add to the expense of, its execution."
  I am not suggesting, of course, that Parliament has not a perfect right to query particular schemes brought in under the terms of the Act. Nevertheless, this scheme is undoubtedly part of a broad conception for the electrical development of the Highlands, and I believe that the good sense of the House would turn down this Motion overwhelmingly if the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends had the nerve to resolve this issue in the Division Lobbies, which apparently they have not.
  11.19 p.m.
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I want to make it perfectly clear—as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) did—that I am not opposed to electrical development in Scotland, especially in the Highlands. Scottish Members have put their names to this Motion to ensure that the Highlands are developed by this scheme. We
  1448
  do not seek to oppose a scheme which will develop the Highlands.
  Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the trouble which other people have got into for being fellow-travellers?
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman may be correct, but if he can suggest a better way of getting discussion in the House than the procedure we are following, I shall be glad to follow it. I do not believe there is another way. The sum of £15 million is a lot of money, and £18 million is still more. Before we agree to this, we ought at least to have some discussion in the House.
  As a Highland Member, I get a great deal of correspondence about the Hydro-Electric Board from time to time, all of it not entirely complimentary.
  Mr. Manuel: But some of it is.
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I agree that some of it is, but all of it is not, and, for that reason alone, when a great new hydro-electric scheme comes along it is only right that we should have an opportunity of discussing it.
  I do not agree with a great deal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), although he speaks with a great deal of knowledge and gives us a great deal of food for thought. I want to follow up what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire. He is worried about local conditions and the effect on local water supplies. I am always worried about what the effect is going to be on the local life. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) referred to the question of an increase in the population in the Highlands, That is what we are looking for. That is where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, because we are looking for a very considerable increase in population, in respect of which a considerable increase in hydro-electric power will be useful in time.
  However, I have reason to believe that industry is being kept out of the Highlands by high costs. I am sure I shall have great difficulty in getting the Joint

  1449
  Under-Secretary to tell me how many industries have nibbled at coming to the Highlands and have been put off by the factor of high cost.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is nothing about industries in the Order. I hope that the noble Lord will not embark upon that subject.
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will not pursue that point.
  I understood that Mr. Speaker said that we might make comparisons, and there is one comparison which I wish to make. Water power is one of our assets in the Highlands, and we want to ensure that it is not simply used for industry in the South without our obtaining development in the Highlands from which it comes. I would compare it with whisky, which can only be produced in the North; we are sometimes not sure that we get the full benefit of our whisky when we hear of the large sums going to the Treasury as a result of the duty on whisky and whisky exports.
  I have an interest in the area where the scheme is proposed. In January, I was climbing some mountains which overlook it; one was Ben y Hone and another Ben Vorlich, and from them I could see the greater part of the area. At the bottom of Ben y Hone there are a small shooting lodge and a number of cottages. This was within a mile of the hydro-electric scheme itself, and it looked as if war or pestilence had passed over the area. It is some miles from the nearest town, but someone had managed to throw some stones through a window of the lodge.
  It struck me that there is something wrong with our way of looking at things. We are spending £18 million on this tremendous hydro-electric scheme and yet, within 50 miles of Glasgow where there is an immense housing shortage, life has died out where it once existed. If he were wise, the owner would take the roof off the building on Ben y Hone for he would then not have to pay the rates. However, the Hydro-Electric Board could strengthen local life by taking the buildings over for reconditioning.
  I do not intend to oppose this Order, but it is good to have a discussion when Orders like this are made. Until we find
  1450
  a better way, I intend to use opportunities such as this to discuss future Orders.
  11.25 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: It has struck hon. Members on this side of the House that on every occasion when a scheme of this sort has been brought forward by the Hydro-Electric Board it has been opposed by certain hon. Gentlemen opposite. If their arguments against this scheme are as valid as those advanced on previous occasions, I do not think that there was any serious reason for them coming forward at all tonight.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) may not be aware that we have on many occasions, in the days when he was addressing people on the barrack square who could not answer him back as effectively and devastatingly as he was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) tonight, discussed these matters connected with hydro-electricity in great detail.
  On those occasions hon. Members with greater knowledge of the subject than the hon. Member for Kidderminster have given their help. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and others in his own party contributed a wealth of technical knowledge. There was frequently then a considerable exchange of views in great detail on the relative desirability of producing electric power by steam generation or hydro generation. There is nothing new in all this. The hon. Member for Kidderminster has not enlightened or surprised anyone, except that he has spoken even a little louder than usual.
  In recent years we have had this business of annulment Prayers over and over again in connection with every scheme of this kind that has come before the House. Really, no new argument of any kind has been put forward by hon. Members opposite tonight. I do not see why they should impose upon us a repetition of the arguments they put on earlier occasions.
  This scheme is an essential part of the whole plan of the Board. Social advance and development in the Highlands hinges largely upon the production of hydro-electricity. To frustrate, to halt or even to damage this major scheme in any way

  1451
  is to do a great disservice to the future economic and social development of the Highlands—not only the Highlands but the Islands as well. It is by the sale of bulk supplies that, to a large extent, the Board finance these uneconomic schemes which nobody ever came forward to finance before—neither private enterprise nor the State.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster in his advocacy of steam went a little bit too far. He envisaged the construction and development of a number of low thermal steam stations.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to get his facts correct. What I advocated was the replacement of old low efficiency thermal stations by new modern high efficiency high pressure steam stations.
  Mr. MacMillan: I should be sorry to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman in any way. He can get all his facts wrong without any assistance from me, but on this occasion I misrepresented him and I apologise. He envisaged for the new stations which he intends to create a life of 25 years. Yet by that time he also says he expects to be into the atomic age with coal and hydro-generation outmoded. Therefore, he has not made out a very good economic case for expenditure upon these new high efficiency stations.
  Mr. Nabarro: It is not I who put the life of a modern steam station at 25 years: it is the British Electricity Authority. Do not attribute it to me.
  Mr. MacMillan: At all events, the estimate of the hon. Member was that all these methods would be out of date in 25 years or so; and that the hydro-electric stations, with their 80 years' expectation of life—if one may put it that way—would all be useless. If the British Electricity Authority is responsible for that statement, I will accept it, but I should like to know something more, in that case, about the economics of a scheme with a life of only 25 years. If the money which Parliament has authorised to be spent is not expended on this scheme—is not spent by the Hydro-Electric Board on the Breadalbane and other schemes—what is it to be spent on? So far as the Board, whose money it is, is concerned, this money must be expended
  1452
  on hydro-electric schemes. What else can it be used for?
  Mr. Nabarro: Diesel stations.
  Mr. MacMillan: Yes; but let us remember the steam stations at Dundee and Aberdeen, in the Board's own area, are far more expensive and even wasteful jobs than the provision of hydro-electricity. Does the hon. Member dispute that? He can dispute it if he wishes. And diesel generation is nearly four times as costly as hydro-power.
  The Board is to produce electricity in the Highlands by this scheme; but it is also producing social and economic benefits quite apart from electricity production. It has done a good many things quite outside electrical generation, things which Parliament has laid upon it as a duty to do; and if it does not go on with the Breadalbane scheme, and other major schemes, it will then no longer be able to carry on financially and serve economic and other needs of the Highlands and the islands which it is helping so much to develop.
  Here is a scheme which has been authorised by Parliament, and so far as the Board is concerned, it cannot spend the money whose spending has been approved on roads and drainage—apart from incidental works—or anything else of that nature. There is no authority for that, so it is complete nonsense to talk about the obligations laid upon the Board by this House as not being carried out, simply because it does not divert all its resources to land drainage and major road schemes.
  The Board has done some incidental drainage and other things, and it has brought more land over all into cultivation than it has flooded, or made sterile by its other operations.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: We are not saying that the money voted to the Board should be used by the Board for alternative purposes. There is a certain amount of money available from the Treasury. Might it not be used to better purposes at this stage?
  Mr. MacMillan: There are rising costs in all directions, and the argument in favour of delay is an argument to increase the costs. So far as concerns the

  1453
  argument favouring the alternative of steam generation, with new expensive generating stations, with continuing high costs of maintenance, the hon. Members have not made this case at all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland quite rightly used an argument which has been used over and over again in this House in connection with these schemes for hydro-generated power, that the continuing costs of maintenance are incomparably smaller than those connected with steam generation. Indeed, it was originally laid upon the Board that its costs of production must not be higher than those of the most efficient steam station.
  On the other hand, it is not allowed to sell its electricity below cost. It has no authority to do so, and if any industry hon. Members opposite have in mind wants to be subsidised in this way it should go to the Treasury and not to the Board which has duties laid upon it by Parliament to balance its budget, taking one year with another over a period. The Board must have its Breadalbanes, its Tummel-Garries and its Loch Sloys if all the other minor and valuable schemes are to go on. To frustrate it in these schemes would be to destroy the whole future development of the hydro-electric project and the economic and social development which the Board has in mind.
  Though the hon. Member for Kidderminster may have convinced himself—as he does more easily than he convinces anybody else—I do not think he made out a better case tonight than he did on a previous occasion in the Scottish Grand Committee when he burdened us with a whole lot of worthless arguments, now proved to be wholly worthless technically by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland, and shown to be financially not much better.
  I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will unite on this issue as they did in 1943 and on other occasions when they rejected Prayers like this one, which they considered to be ill-conceived and ill-presented and which could do a great deal of damage to the whole future prospect of the Highlands.
  11.38 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): When the news first broke upon the astonished
  1454
  world that this Prayer was to be put down the House was filled——
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. For the guidance of the House, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is now closing the debate?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know anything about that. I called him because he rose from the Front Bench.
  Mr. Stewart: I cannot answer that question because I do not know. I thought it might suit the convenience of the House if I got up now, but it is not for me to say whether this is the end of the debate or not.
  Mr. Rankin: We heard on another occasion, which the hon. Gentleman will recollect, that he was rising for the convenience of the House, and it turned out to be for its complete inconvenience. Can we be sure that history will not repeat itself tonight?
  Major D. McCallum: May we have an assurance from the Front Bench that the debate will not close now, because hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to put their points of view?
  Mr. Speaker: This is exempted business, and it does not lie with the Front Bench or anyone else to close the debate.
  Mr. Stewart: I cannot say more than I have said. Mr. Speaker has made plain the position. I am not closing the debate now, and if hon. Members are called by Mr. Speaker they will have an opportunity of speaking.
  I was saying that when this debate was first announced, the House was full of rumours that something frightful was going to happen. We were to have a debate which would last all night: some of the speeches would last over an hour, and there would be a challenge to the Government. I never believed any of those stories, and I am very glad to discover that all that my hon. Friends wanted was an opportunity to discuss this matter.
  That is a very proper thing for hon. Members to do. It is quite frequently done these days, and I welcome it. Indeed, the more hon. Members we get to discuss Scottish affairs in this House

  1455
  the better pleased I and all of us will be. I think we are all glad that this debate has taken place, understanding, as we do, what its purpose really is.
  My hon. and gallant Friend who introduced the debate had two points. First, he asked a small question: would this scheme affect the water supplies? My information is that it will not affect the water supplies at all. The same water will flow over eventually and get to the sea. I do not think he need be in the least concerned about it. I am sure he was thinking about drainage and so on.
  He was also concerned, as perhaps were one or two other hon. Members, with whether this project representing, as it does, the probable expenditure of £18 million or more when it is finished, is a wise expenditure. He asked, in a sense, whether the Government had entered upon such a proposition light-heartedly or with care. I assure him that a project of this great size is not considered and is not approved by the Government—certainly not by my right hon. Friend—without the most anxious, careful and meticulous examination of all the facts and circumstances. I should like the House to believe that.
  The capital development programmes of all nationalised industries are reviewed every year by the Government. This review looks ahead for several years and takes account of the need to secure, as far as resources permit, a proper balance between development in the different nationalised industries, in the privately owned industries and in public services. The review also takes account not only of the demand for borrowing under Government guarantee which the nationalised industry programmes involve, but also of the demands on real resources which the programmes proposed will create, and the extent to which these schemes are likely to conflict with other important objectives.
  I should like to take this a little further to convince my hon. Friends on this particular matter. The main advantages in this particular scheme to Scotland and, indeed to the United Kingdom, are these: it creates power without using coal, supplies of which are barely keeping pace with demand. This scheme, we know, is calculated to be equivalent to saving
  1456
  180,000 tons of coal. I represent a part of Scotland where we produce coal, and I ask my hon. Friends who are from agricultural areas to believe that 180,000 tons of coal is a great deal of coal. It involves the employment of a great many men; and coal today is of enormous value to this country, and will be for years to come. The Hydro-Electric Board up to the present is operating in such a way as to save the equivalent of about 600,000 tons of coal, and they will go on saving more and more as the new schemes come forward.
  I do not need to tell my hon. Friends how vital it is that our coal production should increase, that we should use it in the most economical way, and that the greatest quantity should be available for export. This scheme makes a clear and definite contribution to that very important object.
  I now invite the attention of my hon. Friends from industrial areas to this point: the demands made on the engineering industry, and particularly on that sector which produces heavy electrical plant and equipment, are considerably less than in the case of a steam station. The demands on the heavy electrical plant industry at present are very great and this industry has particularly favourable export opportunities.
  Anybody who is in the least associated with the heavy electrical industry must know that its products are in demand in all parts of our export market. The Government held an important conference with the Commonwealth countries the other day, and it is clear from that conference that one of the keenest demands upon our industry is for this very heavy electrical plant. The great merit of a hydro-electricity scheme is that it does not make demands upon that heavy industry to anything like the extent that is done by steam plant. Therefore, in using hydro-electric schemes one is increasing electrical power without straining precious resources.
  Mr. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. Stewart: May I please be allowed to continue? I think the hon. Member has spoken about 20 times already. If he allows me to proceed, I think that we shall all greatly benefit.

  1457
  Moreover, although the capital cost of a hydro-electricity scheme is high overall, by far the greatest cost is not for electrical equipment but for civil engineering work. That is carried out mostly by unskilled labour which otherwise would be idle. What are the facts in Scotland today? Time and time again hon. Members on both sides of the House have criticised the Government for the fact that unemployment in Scotland is about twice as high as in England; and that is true.
  I was very glad to see that the figures for unemployment were down substantially last month, but it is still very high. The Board are employing 2,540 people directly, most of whom are Scots. They are employing indirectly through various contractors no fewer than 5,780, of whom about 4,000 are Scots, more than half of whom are Highlanders. I cannot think that any Highland Member will ask seriously for the annulment of a scheme of this kind which gives employment to his constituents, which has been giving employment for six years and is likely to go on doing so for 20 years. That is the practical issue which we face.
  I now invite my hon. Friends to look at a side of the matter which has scarcely been touched upon tonight. This is not only an electrical project. This is a project to enable the Board to do what the House of Commons asked and directed it to do. The Board has to play their part in the social and economic development of the Highlands. If one likes to divide the functions of the Board into two, that is one of them. That is the essence of the Cooper Report. It is the essence of the 1943 Act.
  I do not want to enter into technical arguments. We have heard two technical experts tonight. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Only one."] I was once on the staff of the late Earl Lloyd George, who used to say, "Never believe the experts." Tonight, one expert has cancelled out the other, so I do not think that the House need trouble too much about these expert arguments. But it is the outstanding fact that as a result of hydro-electric operations in Scotland, electricity has been brought to the kitchens of large numbers of farms, crofts, and ploughmen's cottages. Warmth, light and modern facilities have been brought to thousands and thousands of people. Up
  1458
  to now the Board has introduced electricity to about half the potential consumers in the Highlands area. It has still to deal with the other half and it needs this and other additional schemes to meet the requirements of the Highland people.
  It has been said that if all the installed capacity of the existing hydro-electric schemes were employed, the needs of all Highland consumers could be met. That sounds good theory, like so much of the argument which comes from certain directions; but it is not related to the practical truth. As Lord Cooper said in his report—I will quote that report if any hon. Member wants me to do so—the whole essence of this particular scheme was that the profits to be anticipated from sales to the Central Electricity Board, now the British Electricity Authority, will be available to the new Board to assist in the development of supply and distribution in the new Board's area.
  It is only by continuing to export substantial quantities of the electrical power produced that it is possible to provide heat and power to the crofter and farmer and ploughman in the Highlands at prices these people can afford to pay. We could do as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) suggested and use the installed capacity, but it would be at prices which no crofter could pay. That argument is theoretical, and far away from the practical case.
  The hon. Member has been invited by the Hydro-Electricity Board to go to the Highlands and see the schemes, but he has never accepted the invitation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I again invite him to come. If he were to do so, and saw the conditions in which our Highland compatriots live, and what is being done, he would not, if I may say so frankly, talk the nonsense he has been talking tonight.
  Mr. Nabarro Mr. Nabarro rose——
  Mr. Stewart: That is the social side of this problem. We have to continue authorising the Board to proceed with new schemes. Of the total output of the Board at present, 75 per cent. is used in the Highlands. May I offer a slight correction to the hon. Member for Kidderminster? He made the same mistake

  1459
  during discussion of the Bill which set up the Board. His figures are based on the population of the crofting community, namely, 400,000. That is inaccurate.
  The Board is responsible for the whole of Scotland north of the Tay, and there is a population of 1,200,000. That is three times the figure he takes, and gives a completely different result. The hon. Member has told us what a difficult time he has had tonight. We knew that he would have a difficult time. He has always had a rotten case to put up. We have been sorry for him throughout these debates. It would be easier for him if he got down to the realities of this scheme. Then he would be on the same side as the rest of us.
  The matter of distribution has been raised, and the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) touched on the matter with skill. It is not enough to say that the cost to the consumer in the Highlands is the same as the cost to the consumers in, say, Stirling. The cost of distribution in the Highlands is very much higher than it is elsewhere. I will give one out of the many examples which I could quote. There is an area along the north coast of Scotland from Thurso to Tongue, where there are no more than 600 potential consumers.
  It costs the Hydro-Electric Board £250,000 to provide the distribution for these relatively few people. That is why it is so costly, and that is why we arrive at this strange figure whereby it appears that the cost to the consumer in the Highlands is the same as elsewhere. The truth is that the cost of producing electricity under the hydro-electric scheme is substantially less than it would be by means of a steam station. It is the excessively high cost of distribution which we have to keep in mind.
  Mr. J. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman comparing the cost of distribution for a hydro-electric station as against a steam station in the same circumstances? To my mind, one of the advantages of generating electricity, say, by diesel oil is that it is possible to have a great number of small stations dotted throughout the area and therefore reduce these distribution costs.
  Mr. Stewart: It is quite true that a number of small diesel stations would be useful, but the high cost of oil makes the running cost of diesel stations very high.
  Mr. Grimond: But is it higher?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, it is higher, but in some parts of the Highlands it is impossible to provide any other kind of power.
  It is said that instead of this method of hydro-production we should have had steam stations. I ask hon. Members who were here before the war, if we had to rely upon steam stations would one steam station have been provided for the Highlands? Of course not. Where would we have had the steam stations? Would we have had the steam stations to serve the Highlands in the South or in the North? If we had them in the South the cost of transmission would have pushed up the prices higher than they are today, because there would have been no off-setting profit from the B.E.A. as there is now. Had the steam stations been in, say, Inverness-shire, the cost of transporting coal to those stations would again have made the price to the consumer infinitely higher than he could possibly bear. The truth is that it is only by hydro-electric schemes that the Highlands have been provided with electricity at all. That is a fact that every Scotsman understands, and I only need mention it to have it accepted.
  I wish to refer to the question of land drainage. I was asked what is the effect of this scheme upon land drainage. I was born in Strathearn. I know the River Earn, which is the chief river affected by this scheme, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire has said. I have known the Earn all through the years of my childhood, and I know that it flooded every year and that considerable areas of land were submerged. This scheme, by the testimony of the National Farmers' Union of Perthshire and of the Perth County Council, will be a definite advantage in preventing the flooding of the River Earn in the future. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will accept that assurance.
  I end on this note. This scheme is intended primarily for the Highlands, but not only for the Highlands. I have never looked upon this hydro-electric scheme—and I hope no one else will—as a

  1461
  parochial Highland affair. It is largely that, but not entirely. This scheme is intended to be to the advantage of Scotland as a whole. I must ask hon. Members to believe me when I say—I could provide the figures if need be—that the needs of industrial and domestic Scotland south of the Tay are becoming exceedingly grave and urgent.
  I have the figures here. If we consider the need in the next five or six years for electric power installations to meet obsolescence, to meet the growth of load, to provide against breakdowns, to provide against hard weather and the elimination of load spreading, the figures are such that if we do not get from the Board a very substantial contribution, Scotland's industrial midlands will be in very serious danger at the end of five years. Therefore, this scheme of Highland electrification, while playing a great part in the development of the social and economic life of the Highlands, will also play a vital part in maintaining the industrial vitality of the whole of Scotland.
  I have every sympathy possible, and so have my people, with my hon. Friends who come from that part of the country. I understand their viewpoint. I come from that part of the country myself. But I am also a Scotsman—which is still more important; and I appeal to the House to support the Government in carrying through this scheme for the sake of the great, vital and necessary contribution it will make to the benefit of Scotland as a whole.
  12.3 a.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: The Motion before the House is that the Breadalbane project be annulled, and I want to advance briefly three reasons why we ought not to do so. A great deal of ground, of course, has been covered on the general question of hydro-electric development in the Highlands, and I shall confine myself as briefly as possible to these three points so that I do not retread any part of the ground that has been already covered.
  The first point I want to make has been touched on. That is the saving in coal to the extent of 180,000 tons, but I think it opportune to point out that to date the schemes that are already in operation have saved the country 600,000 tons of coal, and that is a most important saving from the export point of view.
  1462
  I do not want to dwell too long upon that point at this stage because it has been, as I say, to some extent covered, but there is one point which has received no attention at all. The challenge has been made from those who are moving this Prayer that the cost of the scheme has risen from £15 million to £18½ million. The scheme was first submitted in 1951, and that is an important point, because we have got to put to ourselves the question: What has caused the inflation which has been so vigorously attacked—the inflation of over £3 million since that date?
  First of all, the most serious item in that inflation has been the policy of the party opposite. They have made the cost of money dearer, and as a result of the increase in the Bank rate the Board is faced with a rise in expenditure of £150,000 every year. That is not something that we can lay at the door of the Board. It is the direct outcome of the policy to which the opponents of the scheme approve. They supported the policy of increasing the Bank rate; they supported the policy that sent up the charges that the Board has to meet; and now they come along and say that the £15 million ought not to be increased, when one of the main reasons for the increase lies at the door of the Government.
  It has not been made sufficiently clear that the money which is being sought is not going to be spent in one year but over seven years. If the Bank rate does not increase further, over those seven years interest charges alone will amount to £1,050,000. In other words, one-third of the entire inflation which the Hydro-Electric Board has to meet is caused by the fact that money has been made dearer by the Government which the hon. Member supports. I do not see why the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Col. Gomme-Duncan) and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) should disappear at this moment——
  Mr. Niall Macpherson Mr. Niall Macpherson rose——
  Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. It is not today any more; it is tomorrow morning, and we have waited here a long time. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman has anything to say he will get an opportunity to say it.

  1463
  The point I am making is quite a substantial one. It is hypocritical for hon. Members opposite to condemn the Hydro-Electric Board for incurring charges which were forced on them by the Government which they support.
  The third point is that there have been many objectors to this scheme. The Perthshire County Council was one of them—the county council, part of whose area is represented by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth, who is no longer in his place. The Farmers' Union were another; so were the Amenity Committee and the Fisheries Committee. Every one of those objections was inquired into and met, and now there are not even any private objectors let alone public ones.
  I hope that the Perthshire County Council—and, perhaps, Inverness-shire County Council—are taking note not so much of the fact that the two Members who represent those areas have moved the annulment of this Order, but of the company they keep, because people are judged by that, and on every occasion when the hon. Member for Kidderminster has had a chance of attacking the projects of the Hydro-Electric Board he has attacked them. I do not think it is wrong to say that he is opposed to Highland development, because he has stated tonight that he does not mind electrification for the purposes of the Highlands but objects to the export of surplus electricity to the grid.
  He objects to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board earning the butter that goes with its bread; but if it cannot get the money that comes from the export of its surplus electricity it cannot carry on the development of the Scottish Highlands. That is the reason why I say that he has given us at least the impression that his objection is to the social and economic development of the Highlands. That is why I regret that two Highland Members should bear him company tonight.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: As a fellow Sassenach of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I consider that the hon. Gentleman's representation of my hon. Friend's case is most unfair. My hon. Friend's point was that he objected not to the idea of the Hydro-Electric Board export-
  1464
  ing electricity but to the initial expenditure upon the means of producing the electricity. The hon. Member opposite must know that quite well.
  Mr. Rankin: I may be wrong, but my recollection is that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has not been here throughout the course of the debate. I am dealing with the speech made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster and not with any private knowledge that the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have of the views of the hon. Member for Kidder minster. The hon. Member for Kidderminster said tonight that he was not in favour of the export of surplus electricity to the South.
  Major Legge-Bourke Major Legge-Bourke rose——
  Mr. Rankin: It is not fair that I should again be interrupted. There are still one or two hon. Members who wish to say a word or two, and I feel that in giving way once to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I have met the situation.
  Major Legge-Bourke: What the hon. Member has said is gross misrepresentation.
  Mr. Rankin: If I have misrepresented the hon. Member for Kidderminster it is not my fault; the cause is either the hon. Member's choice of words or the fact that as the seconder of the Motion he should be in his place to reply to any misrepresentation that may be made, but is not. However, I do not accept that I have misrepresented the position which he took up.
  As I was saying, there is now no Highland objector to the scheme; the Perthshire County Council objection and the objections of the amenity and fishery interests have been met. There is now not a single private objector left except the lone wolf from Kidderminster. who has tonight, put on the granny's mutch and managed, unfortunately, to beguile two political babes from the Highlands of Scotland to support him. I hope that they will give thought to this and see their way to withdraw this Prayer.
  12.14 a.m.
  Major D. McCallum: As the only back-bench Member of the House whose constituency is concerned with the scheme, I feel that I might be allowed to say a few words.

  1465
  I am sorry that my hon. Friends are not here at the moment, because I wish to ask them to withdraw the Motion. Although a certain number of my hon. Friends and, maybe, right hon. Friends, support them, I feel that all those who know the Highlands and the matter at issue—it is not merely the cost of generating by steam, atomic energy or hydro power; it is social and economic development for the Highlands—
  Mr. Thomas Steele: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has given it as his opinion that the Motion should be withdrawn, but neither the mover nor the seconder are at present in the Chamber.
  Major McCallum: That is not my fault. I dare say that my hon. Friends will learn of my words.
  I must first declare a personal interest in this matter, for I do not want it to be thought that I am pleading one way or another for my personal interests. I am the proprietor of fishing interests affected by this scheme and the one which will follow it. Therefore, it might be understood if I were violently to oppose the scheme, but I do not do anything of the sort. I realise that, though it may be to my own damage, it is a scheme which may bring untold advantages in the years to come to hundreds—I put it no higher than that—of my fellow-Highlanders living in the Breadalbane area, in Glen Lochay and Glen Dochart.
  I ask all my hon. Friends to realise that we know what we are talking about. We know that the cost of hydro-generated electricity is cheaper than either coal or atomic energy. At the same time, we realise that vast mileages are involved to supply electricity to one or two farms, crofts or houses. If only hon. Members would visit the area they would realise the importance it has to the whole hydroelectric plan. After this scheme there will be a scheme which will be entirely in Argyllshire. I am one of the 20,000 consumers who were connected by the Board in 1952. I realise what a benefit the supply of electricity is and so do my friends.
  The Portobello station was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kidderminster
  1466
  (Mr. Nabarro). That station blew up the other day. We have not yet had a hydro-electric station which blew up. That can be said in favour of hydro-electricity. Seriously, I ask my hon. Friends to withdraw this Prayer in view of the importance of this scheme to the Highlanders, the farms, crofters and other inhabitants of the area.
  12.17 a.m.
  Sir Herbert Williams: The cost of this scheme is very large——
  Mr. Manuel: How much?
  Sir H. Williams: I am told that it is £18 million. The first guess was £15 million, and I think that it has gone up to £18 million. Incredible restrictions are imposed by the Government on capital expenditure. Therefore, what we are engaged in discussing is a priority. Are £18 million to be spent on this project or on other projects? That is part of the issue. It is a choice between spending £18 million on this scheme or on something else at a time when there are grave restrictions on capital expenditure imposed by the Treasury on every Department of State.
  Whenever one of my constituents wants a telephone I write to my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General and he says that on account of the restriction on capital expenditure imposed by the Treasury he is very sorry but my constituent cannot have a telephone for one, two, three or four years.
  Mr. Speaker: There is nothing about telephones in this Order.
  Sir H. Williams: I am sorry, Sir. I understood that you called me to order, Mr. Speaker. There was a certain amount of interruption, and I did not catch what you said.
  What we are deciding is whether to spend £18 million on a certain project. That is a lot of money. Therefore, the conflict is between one lot of Her Majesty's subjects and another lot. As one concerned with the second lot of Her Majesty's subjects who are deprived of a whole lot of amenities because of this expenditure of £18 million of capital expenditure, I think that this project is entitled to a certain measure of criticism.
  12.20 a.m.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: In supporting this Prayer, I will be extremely short and say straight away that, as an English representative I do not wish to deprive Scotland of electricity. But I do want to see money that is voted by the House carefully scrutinised before it is spent.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: Is the hon. Member quite clear about the position? The House is not voting this money at all.
  Mr. Doughty: I have a letter which says that some districts may have derived benefit from the Board, but that there is not any need for at least one of the schemes for which the water power is not sufficient to produce electricity comparable with the cost. I hope that the House will not support the scheme.
  Question put, and negatived.

  HOLIDAY SEASON (SPREADOVER)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
  12.22 a.m.
  Sir Ian Fraser: There are about 25 million people who manage to take a holiday each year. Two-thirds of them go to the seaside, and two-thirds go in July and August. They mainly go in the last two weeks of July and the first three weeks of August and this severe concentration has certain adverse effects. It raises the cost of holidays in these two months because the law of supply and demand operates that way, and makes most holidays more expensive than they need be.
  Further, it causes very great hardship or over-work or difficulty for the people who provide the holiday. They sometimes have to work 16 hours a day to look after their guests as they would like to do. They have to concentrate their money-making in a very brief time and then suffer unemployment in a large part of the year. It is very uneconomical and very hard on these people, and there are many owners of hotels and boarding houses who have the anxiety and pain of having to turn away good visitors because
  1468
  they cannot fit them in during this brief season. However, in spite of these difficulties, boarding house or hotel keepers, or small shop-keepers, or those enterprising people who provide amusement, do their job and look after their visitors very well.
  Some people have to take their holidays when their firm closes down. Others have to take theirs at a certain time because of their children's holidays. But the Holidays and Travel Association have shown me figures which support the view that probably half of all the people who take holidays are free to choose the time at which they take them, and a great many more might be free to do so if we gave thought to this matter.
  June is the month of best weather and the longest days, and there is a great deal to be said for taking one's holiday then. But 20 per cent. of the people who take holidays go in the first or second week of August in order that the Bank Holiday may be included, thereby gaining an extra day. This is partly habit and partly a desire to gain an extra day.
  It has been suggested that we should alter the Bank Holiday and have it later in August. Not everyone is in favour of that suggestion, but it is certainly worth studying whether that change should be made. It has been asked on previous occasions that school holidays should be staggered instead of all occurring at about the same time in the second or third week of July. I suggest that this matter should be studied once more and that we should try to see whether we cannot do something about it instead of letting it go by the board.
  The Government might also consider whether it is worth while engaging in and paying for an advertising campaign for the purpose of inducing people to take their holidays in June or September. I am sure that it would be profitable to the nation if such a campaign were instituted and if it were to succeed.
  Again, British Railways might introduce a differential rate in June and September to encourage people to travel in those months. They could, perhaps, institute something similar to the new Scottish Starlight train for taking people from the great centres of population to

  1469
  the holiday towns at lower fares in June and September than those charged in July and August.
  Boarding houses charge less during June and September, and therefore it would be more economic for people to form the habit of going on holiday in those months. We have only to spread the period a week or two each end in order greatly to increase the advantage to all, including those who must go in August and September, and to bring an enormous advantage to our holiday and seaside towns.
  The towns of Morecambe and Heysham, which, among others, I have the honour to represent, have instituted illuminations which start in the third week of August and continue until the middle of October. By this device they have extended their season by about a month beyond what it used to be and have drawn some 2 million people to the town. That shows that a little thought and initiative can bring about a change in people's habits, and a very good change it is for both the people and for Morecambe. Unfortunately, towns like Grange-over-Sands, Coniston, Hawks-head, Silverdale, and many other beautiful towns in the Lake District cannot go in for illuminations. They must rely upon the beauties of their surroundings to draw the people.
  I think that the case is made out for the nation giving thought to the question of how we can spread our holidays better and I would ask my hon. Friend, whom I thank for coming to the House at this late hour to listen to my remarks, whether he will consider whether an inquiry might not be instituted to go into this matter—not necessarily to have an effect this season, but a committee or working party which could collect all the information and see what influence could be brought to bear to bring about such a reform.
  If every firm that did not have to close down at a particular time were, through its welfare service, to gather its people together and put to them the case for having their holidays in June and September, it would have to divert only a small percentage from August and July to effect the change I have in mind. It
  1470
  might become an incentive to people to try to do this, because they realised the enormous advantage. Holidays are not a luxury; they are a necessity for the health of the nation and therefore for its strength.
  Finally, I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether he has any comment to make on an observation made by the Leader of the Opposition the other day that holiday towns and seaside resorts are likely to have a bad time this year. I cannot imagine any statement more discouraging to those who live and work in holiday resorts. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken—indeed I think he is—but I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether this statement has been brought to his notice and if so, whether he has any comment to make upon it.
  12.34 a.m.
  The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): Let me say at once that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) that holidays are now recognised by most of us as a necessity for people who are carrying a heavy burden both in agriculture and industry. The Government, I can assure him, will certainly consider his remarks very carefully, for we all know how experienced he is as a representative of one of the most lovely districts in our island. I must be careful not to refer to the question of Bank Holidays which, on an Adjournment debate, is, I believe, out of order, although it would no doubt make an interesting subject for a debate on another occasion.
  My hon. Friend need have no qualms about myself or any other Minister being present tonight because he has raised what is an interesting and important subject, and one of great sociological interest to all of us. I will try in the short time available to me to deal with some of the more interesting points he put forward. I myself have made a considerable study of this subject. It is a complicated subject and one to which, I know, a great deal of thought has been given by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by employers' associations, local authorities, trade unions and many other organisations.

  1471
  The fact remains, however, that in spite of a considerable amount of publicity over the last few years on the desirability of avoiding the peak holiday season, to which my hon. Friend referred, there is no sign at present of a decrease in the number of people who prefer to take their holidays away from home in July and August. On the contrary, there seems to be a very slight tendency for the numbers who choose this peak holiday period to increase. About two-thirds of the adult population who take holidays now do so, as my hon. Friend said, during the peak holiday period of July and August.
  I should like to make it quite clear that the Government would like to see a wider spread of the period during which people take their annual holiday. This would benefit the holiday resorts, hotels, boarding houses and holiday camps. It might, indeed, enable them to charge lower prices and thus attract a larger number of visitors and increase the number of people who take holidays. But I must make it clear that the Government do not intend to interfere with the public as to when and where they take their holiday. I am sure that that would be the wish of the majority of hon. Members. This is chiefly a matter for holidaymakers and one with which the resorts are largely concerned.
  The British Travel and Holidays Association have had surveys carried out over the past two years—and I think that my hon. Friend used the same figures as are at my disposal—which indicate that the disadvantages of holidays taken during the peak period do not seem to count for very much with many people, who like to go to resorts when they are crowded with other holiday makers and when the weather is supposed to be fine. I cannot give Ministerial approval to the figures which are at my disposal, but I think that broadly speaking they are accurate. During August the average daily hours of sunshine are five, whereas in June they are slightly over six.
  Admittedly, this is only a Gallup survey, but in the course of it 31 per cent. of those interviewed said that the date of their holidays was influenced by business reasons, by the holiday rota in the office
  1472
  or factory in which they worked, or by the fact that their works were closed down for reasons such as Wakes Week in Lancashire and other areas. My hon. Friend will be very interested in the fact that only 9 per cent. said that they were influenced by school holidays. It interested and surprised me, though I agree that it is quite possible that some of those who gave other reasons would also be indirectly influenced by the school holidays.
  My hon. Friend did not refer to examinations. They have been raised often in connection with this problem, but they appear to be a comparatively small though important factor. Examination dates would be very difficult to change. In fact, they only concern about 7 per cent. of children over 11 years of age, in connection with the General Certificate of Education, in any one year. The regulations already allow two weeks' special holiday in any educational year for a child whose parents wish to take it away for a holiday with them.
  The possibility of cheaper fares raises a far more difficult problem. The Transport Commission are required by law to be self-supporting and to levy such charges as will enable them to make both ends meet. At present, the Commission do not think that the introduction of reduced fares to assist the staggering of holidays in peak months would be justifiable. My hon. Friend's point that more people would, in fact, take holidays might be true, but his contention that the transport system might be earning more is at least contestable. Unless the railways could be sure that the total number of people travelling at special rates would be enough to compensate for loss of revenue in July and August on passengers paying full fare, the introduction of special holiday rates might not be a commercial proposition. The transport system has been able to move the crowds at the peak of the holiday season.
  Broadly speaking, the cost of the fare when people go for a fortnight's holiday is a comparatively small portion of the total cost of the holiday. There may be exceptions; but I think we ought not to exaggerate the effect upon the holiday habits of the people which a reduction of fares might have. What we need in this complex and difficult sociological problem

  1473
  is the co-operation of local authorities, trade unions, industry and employers—in fact, of everyone.
  I should like to make clear that this Government, and its predecessor, have had a great deal of co-operation. The B.T.H.A. have organised exhibitions at public libraries designed to persuade holiday-makers to choose off-peak periods. Seven hundred libraries have taken part, and there is a long waiting list of others. The Press has given great assistance. B.T.H.A. staff have given talks to trade councils, have organised exhibitions at mining welfare offices in mining villages, and employers and unions have shown themselves sympathetic.
  This is not a political issue. Apparently the majority of people prefer to go on holiday in July and August, and tradition is not easily changed. This is a problem not only for this country. From what I have been able to learn, the views of the French population are similar to those of English people; they prefer their holidays in the peak period, regardless of the cost involved, and the crowds. There is considerable scope for resorts, such as that represented by my hon. Friend and the resort which I represent, and the constituent members of the organisations concerned in the problem of looking after holidaymakers and seeing what they can do in their own self-interest to change the public mind.
  However, no reasonable person could expect the Government to spend large sums of the taxpayers' money on trying to influence the public in this matter. It would be a great advantage to areas such as the lovely Lakeland district which my hon. and gallant Friend represents, and to many of us who represent coastal constituencies, if the holiday period could be extended for, say, a fortnight. Thousands of people come to the Kentish coast, for instance, where my constituency is. I know that a great deal has been done already by the B.T.H.A., to which the Government gives support and contributes a considerable sum. I should like to say how much the Government appreciate the work of the Holiday Development Committee of that Association. I shall certainly be glad to discuss this matter with my friend, Sir Alexander Maxwell, the Chairman of the
  1474
  B.T.H.A., for which Board of Trade Ministers have to answer, and to discuss it with my hon Friend, and with any other interested hon. Member.
  This is a matter on which we are not divided, but I am doubtful about how much a Government or Ministry should interfere and try to influence people through the expenditure of the taxpayer's money. After all, a holiday is a matter of which the individual alone can be the judge.
  Over the years a number of committees have been set up to consider and investigate this problem. The first was in 1938, and a number of organisations spent a great deal of time and effort in searching for ways by which the public could be persuaded to change its holiday habits. Though I certainly do not feel that the efforts have been fruitless, I am doubtful whether a new committee or inquiry could do more than has already been done. This is primarily a matter for public and private opinion to make up its mind. I do not feel, and I do not think my colleagues feel, that the Government should intervene and try to influence unduly the decisions of the ordinary man, woman or family as to when they should go on holiday, though it would undoubtedly be of considerable advantage to us if we could get more people to go in June.
  As regards my hon. Friend's concluding remarks, I have no Ministerial responsibility for this matter, but I do think the reading public and Parliament are entitled to an explanation from the "Daily Herald" newspaper. I am sorry there are no Opposition Members present in the House at this moment. After all, it is not very late. How can this newspaper, with a large national circulation, reconcile these words used on 1st January, 1953, when it was seeking advertising revenue:
  "Daily Herald families will buy more of your products this year. Their incomes are higher than ever"
  with its two column banner headline on 10th March, 1953:
  "Tory axe will cut holidays?"
  It seems to me that either industry or the reading public have been deliberately misled by this paper, and I think an explanation is obviously necessary.

  1475
  All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I believe that those on the Kentish coast and in his constituency and, indeed, in the country as a whole, who are prepared, anxious and willing to give the people a happy and enjoyable summer will be
  1476
  successful and prosperous in this year of 1953.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes to One o'Clock, a.m.

ROYAL NAVY
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Painted Hall, Greenwich (Public Admissions)
  Painted Hall, Greenwich (Public Admissions)
POST OFFICE
  Stamps (Design)
  Stamps (Design)
  Scottish Timber (Purchase)
  Scottish Timber (Purchase)
  Telephone Service (Tamworth)
  Telephone Service (Tamworth)
  Coronation (Television Facilities)
  Coronation (Television Facilities)
  Pay Increases (Cost)
  Pay Increases (Cost)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Flood Relief Work
  Flood Relief Work
  U.S.A.A.F. (Civilian Employees)
  U.S.A.A.F. (Civilian Employees)
  Maintenance Units (Dilutees)
  Maintenance Units (Dilutees)
  Personnel (Air Transport)
  Personnel (Air Transport)
  AIRCRAFT INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION)
  AIRCRAFT INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Calories and Animal Protein
  Calories and Animal Protein
  Meat Ration
  Meat Ration
  Danish Eggs
  Danish Eggs
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  North Atlantic Treaty (Publicity)
  North Atlantic Treaty (Publicity)
  Rationed Foodstuffs, West Ham (Take-Up)
  Rationed Foodstuffs, West Ham (Take-Up)
  Deserters
  Deserters
NIGERIA
  Western Region Local Government
  Western Region Local Government
  Groundnuts
  Groundnuts
  SINGAPORE (ARBITRATION COURT)
  SINGAPORE (ARBITRATION COURT)
  BRITISH SOMALILAND (POLITICAL MEETINGS)
  BRITISH SOMALILAND (POLITICAL MEETINGS)
  BRITISH GUIANA (REFUSED ENTRY PERMITS)
  BRITISH GUIANA (REFUSED ENTRY PERMITS)
  ANTIGUA (SUGAR NEGOTIATIONS)
  ANTIGUA (SUGAR NEGOTIATIONS)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (SUGAR PRODUCTION)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (SUGAR PRODUCTION)
KENYA
  Kikuyu Tribesman's Death
  Kikuyu Tribesman's Death
  Government Censor
  Government Censor
FIJI
  Secret Ballots
  Secret Ballots
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  GIBRALTAR (250TH ANNIVERSARY)
  GIBRALTAR (250TH ANNIVERSARY)
  HONG KONG (SURPLUS LABOUR)
  HONG KONG (SURPLUS LABOUR)
EMPLOYMENT
  Older Persons
  Older Persons
  RAW MATERIALS (WORLD PRICES)
  RAW MATERIALS (WORLD PRICES)
  Hastings
  Hastings
BRITISH ARMY
  Casualties, Korea
  Casualties, Korea
  Middle East Personnel (Divorces)
  Middle East Personnel (Divorces)
  Air Trooping
  Air Trooping
  HILL FARMING SCHEMES, WALES
  HILL FARMING SCHEMES, WALES
  OVERFISHING CONVENTION (LONDON MEETING)
  OVERFISHING CONVENTION (LONDON MEETING)
  WARD BOUNDARIES, PETERBOROUGH (INQUIRY)
  WARD BOUNDARIES, PETERBOROUGH (INQUIRY)
  CORONATION AMNESTY (DESERTERS)
  CORONATION AMNESTY (DESERTERS)
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS, SCOTLAND (PAYMENTS)
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS, SCOTLAND (PAYMENTS)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

THE LORD BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL
Clifford Arthur, Lord Bishop of Liverpool—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.37 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, can the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House give us an indication of how far he intends to go to-night with this Transport Bill? I am completely committed, speaking on behalf of this side, to giving the noble Viscount the completion of the Committee stage to-morrow night. The only question is, how we shall divide it up. I think it is convenient to Members to know, so that they can make their arrangements. I suggest that we might get to the end of Clause 22, or possibly the end of Clause 23, whichever suits the noble Viscount better. It is convenient that we should know in advance.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl. Naturally, I would entirely wish to suit the convenience of the House. I think the suggestion which the noble and learned Earl has made is a happy one. If we confined ourselves to-day to Clauses 14 to 22 then, with the exception of Clause 16, which deals with a different subject, we should be able to devote the whole of the day to the various aspects of the railway clauses, to which the noble and learned Earl, and, indeed, the whole House, rightly attach a good deal of importance. Therefore, I gladly accept the suggestion that we should complete to-night our consideration of Clause 22 or Clause 23. If there is nothing much in Clause 23 we may as well take that also, so that we can go forward from there on the following day.
1282
Perhaps I may at the same time make one other comment. There are on the Paper for to-morrow three small Orders which would normally be dealt with first. Obviously, those ought to go to the bottom of the list, so that when we start to-morrow we can carry straight on with the Transport Bill. So far as today's business is concerned, I gladly accept the noble and learned Earl's suggestion.
EARL JOWITT: The proposition, then, is that we go to the end of Clause 22 and, if it appears that there is nothing much in Clause 23, we throw in that clause, so to speak; but that our target is the end of Clause 22
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, the "target for to-night" is Clause 22. If we manage the subsidiary operation, so much the better.

RATIFICATION OF TREATIES
2.45 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it should not in future be a rare exception that important Treaties, rightly negotiated in privacy, should come into force on the day of signature, without need for ratification, thus depriving Parliament of any opportunity for discussions before being confronted with an accomplished fact.]
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am afraid the answer is rather long, but as this is an important subject I think the House would probably prefer that I should read it rather than circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The noble Lord has raised a question relating to the practice of Her Majesty's Government, but before I deal with that, it is perhaps necessary for me to restate the position in regard to the ratification of international Agreements, both in International Law and in relation to our Constitution.
Internationally, there is never any necessity for ratification unless the Agreement so provides. It is entirely for the parties to decide, in the light of their own internal constitutional and political

1283
positions, whether or not they will make the Agreement subject to ratification. If an Agreement is not made subject to ratification and is expressly to come into force at the moment of its signature, that is, internationally, perfectly valid.
So far as our own constitutional position goes, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said on February 18, when the noble Lord raised this question apropos of the Sudan Agreement, ratification is part of the treaty-making power in the Prerogative and is the executive act of the Government of the day. There is, under our Constitution, nothing corresponding to the necessity for Senatorial ratification of Treaties obtaining under the United States constitution. Strictly speaking, Her Majesty's Government never have to obtain Parliamentary consent before making or ratifying a Treaty.
Having said that, I should now come down to what happens in practice, which I understand is really the main object of the noble Lord's Question. Ratification occurs in practice, and it is desirable that it should so occur, in two types of international Agreement. The first is where we should not, in fact, be able to implement the Treaty without legislation. It is then necessary to ask Parliament for the legislation, and since Her Majesty's Government cannot be certain that Parliament will grant it, it is necessary that the Treaty should be subject to ratification, and that we should get the legislation passed between the time when we signed the Treaty and the time when we propose to ratify it. The other case is that in which the political importance of a Treaty is so great that Her Majesty's Government feel obliged, as a political necessity, but not as a legal necessity, to consult Parliament about it before becoming committed. Here again, it would be customary to make the coming into force of the Treaty dependent upon ratification and to stage a debate about it in Parliament at some point after signature, so that, if Parliament clearly disapproved, it would still be open to Her Majesty's Government not to ratify the Agreement.
That is the general position. So the answer to the noble Lord's Question is that, leaving aside the cases where a Treaty requires domestic legislation to become effective, it must rest with the Government of the day to decide whether
1284
a particular Treaty should be reserved for Parliamentary approval.
LORD VANSITTART: I thank the noble Lord for his statement and I hope I may ask for time to digest it. In view of the repeated outbursts of General Neguib, a procedure which admitted of no discussion before we were faced with an accomplished fact might not be acceptable to some of us.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is always a matter of opinion by any individual as to whether or not the Government of the day should reserve a Treaty for Parliamentary approval before it ratifies it; but, of course, the Government of the day, and nobody else, can take that responsibility. It does so having regard to all the circumstances and with the knowledge that Parliamentary resources in relation to the Government are not exhausted, and that if Parliament disapproves of the action of the Government in advising the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, it is quite open to Parliament to pass a vote of censure on the Government, and that would be the end of the Government.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Viscount gave a clear account of the position legally and politically, but is it not the fact that, in recent years, in the last generation particularly, all important instruments and Treaties have been brought before Parliament? The case brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, surely falls into that category, and yet the Government appear to be departing from what has become an established practice.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Most certainly not. The Lord Chancellor, I am sure, would confirm this. No such practice has grown up. There has been no change in recent years in the position that it must rest with the Government of the day to make the decision. There has certainly been no change.
LORD VANSITTART: It has been the practice that Agreements of real importance ought to be stipulated as subject to ratification. Surely some of us would not be prepared to accept this in respect to something even more important, like the impending Agreement on the Suez Canal.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Whether a particular Agreement should be reserved for Parliamentary approval before ratification must be a matter of opinion, and in a general answer I am not prejudging any case that may arise as to any Agreement that may be entered into in the future. But I do not think that any constitutional lawyer, including the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, himelf, who was in a prominent position in the Foreign Office for a long time, would dispute the constitutional position which I have laid down—namely, that the decision must rest with the Government of the day.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is not the position extremely involved, according to the noble Viscount's answer, and does it not clearly call for a special review in view of present day circumstances? If the Government were to step in, as he suggests, in particular cases, would that not involve stepping in on the Royal Prerogative?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In making the Treaty the Royal Prerogative is exercised. It is necessary for a Government to ratify where domestic legislation is required and where the Treaty cannot become effective unless there has been domestic legislation. Where no legislation is required it must rest with the Government of the day to decide whether it is a case reserved for the approval of Parliament before the Treaty comes into effective force. I think the two cases are simple and I have no doubt at all that I am stating the constitutional position.
LORD KILLEARN: May we be told why, in this case, it was decided not to include in the Agreement a clause providing for ratification?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Because in all the circumstances the Government of the clay thought they were acting in the right way.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No one will dispute that the noble Viscount has given a perfectly accurate summary of the legal position and has described the constitutional position as it has always appeared to the Executive of the time. But is it not an extremely questionable practice to embark on an Agreement of this character, and not merely to omit the formality of ratification but also not to
1286
seek of either House of Parliament an opportunity for discussion and advice? Does not the noble Viscount think that the experience we have had at the hands of the other party to this highly controversial Agreement ought to teach the Government next time to obtain Parliamentary approval, remembering that they depend for their continued existence as an Administration upon the continued confidence of Parliament?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Viscount has repeated what I have already said—that in taking a decision as to what is desirable and right Her Majesty's Government will always take into consideration the fact that if they were not supported by Parliament in the executive action they take, they would cease to be a Government. It is a matter of opinion which anybody can hold whether in relation to something that has happened in the past Her Majesty's Government have acted wisely or unwisely. I must not be led, and I am sure no such experienced Parliamentarian as the noble Viscount would expect me to be led, into the consideration of a hypothetical case in advance, and say in such a case what the decision of Her Majesty's Government would be.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is it not the simple fact here that the Government are afraid of their own supporters in both Houses?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are not afraid either of our supporters or our opponents.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Why is this described as a Treaty at all? The Sudan Agreement is an Amendment of the Agreement presented by Sir Evelyn Baring to the Khedive in 1899. Why is it therefore called a Treaty, and said to require all the procedural safeguards that a full treaty would enjoy?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not sure that I should like to answer that question without notice. The White Paper, Cmd. 8767, is called Constitutional Documents Relative to the Sudan and the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Egyptian Government. However the thing is described—and it is described as an Agreement—it is in

1287
effect a Treaty because a Treaty is an agreement between two sovereign parties.
EARL JOWITT: I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount has said as to the correct constitutional practice. It is for the Government of the day to decide whether in any particular case to ask for Parliamentary approval in advance. But I do not think the noble Viscount recognises that in the last thirty or forty years a very considerable change has been accepted; and nowadays the convention has grown up that, save in exceptional cases, Parliament is asked in advance. I do not say that that is an absolute rule, and I do not dispute that the Executive have authority to decide, but in my experience the convention has altered during my political lifetime. Nowadays, Parliament is asked in advance far more than was the case in the old days.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I agree with the noble and learned Earl. In the old days, probably, Parliament was seldom asked. To-day, Parliament is more frequently asked. I think that is certainly the case in very important matters. There may be cases of vital urgency where it maybe extremely desirable to make an Agreement which, had there been ample time, the Government would have submitted to Parliament. The noble Lord, I think, has himself been in that position. We are certainly always anxious to take Parliament into our confidence, and I think we have proved that in practice. But in cases such as I have indicated the Government of the day must take the decision. We have to act and then to justify to Parliament.
There is also the other side of the matter. We have entered into a very large number of Agreements in recent years—I think the noble Lord himself was concerned in many of them—where ratification was necessary, because what was done under the Treaty could not be fulfilled without domestic legislation in this country.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the Government are so confident of support in a matter of this kind, even if they have not time to ask Parliament before they enter into these commitments, would it not be
1288
desirable for the Government to go to Parliament and, by virtue of a Resolution, seek some approval from one House or the other of what they claim to have done?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that would be an unusual course where action had been taken. I think the more natural course would be for a debate to take place on a Motion challenging the action of the Government, if it was challenged.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, confirming what the noble Earl who leads the Opposition has suggested, is it not the fact that the course which he suggests had its origin in the action of the late Lord Salisbury's Government, when they submitted to Parliament a Treaty which surrendered Heligol and to Germany, and also, I think, made some arrangements about Zanzibar?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That may well be so.
LORD VANSITTART: Before I leave this subject may I, with great respect to the noble Viscount, say that putting down a Motion after the fact has been accomplished is not the same thing as having opportunity for amicable discussion on ratification. I for one, in this case, should not have put down a Motion on this subject, although there are points in the Agreement which I do not particularly like, because of the inevitable effect in the Sudan. I feel that it would have been a great tactlessness on my part to do such a thing. But I should have tried to put several points if we had had an opportunity of discussion on ratification.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was not at all saying that asking, after the event, for approval of something you had done, or answering after the event for something you had done, was at all the same thing as asking for approval before you do a thing. That applies in every relationship of life. But what I did say was that it must rest with the Government of the day, having regard to all the circumstances of each particular case, to decide which of the two alternatives they thought, with their full responsibility, it was right to adopt.

THE SUDAN: THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S POWERS
3.3 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To inquire whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that, with his now restricted authority, the Governor-General of the Sudan still retains sufficient powers in the interim period to safeguard the Sudanese people against any overt or covert attempt to impair their genuine independence.]
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My right honourable friend is satisfied that the powers retained by the Governor-General are adequate for the purposes which the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD KILLEARN: In thanking the noble Viscount for that statement of satisfaction, which I am sure many people will receive with relief—it will, of course, be noted in the columns of Hansard—may I ask him whether his attention has been called to the report in to-day's Times in a telegram from Cairo, dated March 10, of a rather startling character. The first point is to the effect that the Agreement "is already in a fragile condition." That is the view of the Times correspondent. A little later on in the same message there comes what is apparently an expression of opinion by Neguib, that certain action—rather complicated according to the report—alleged to have been taken by us, shows lack of good will on the part of the British.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I haw noticed that report. I understand that my noble friend the Minister of State hopes to be in a position to make a statement, in answer to a private notice Question in another place, in about half an hour's time. It will probably be of sufficient interest to the House that I should get a copy of that statement, if the Minister is able to make it this afternoon, and make a similar statement here.
LORD KILLEARN: I shall be very grateful.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Royal Titles Bill through its remaining stages.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ROYAL TITLES BILL
3.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the Statute of Westminster, which did not create but recognised and declared the status of the independent countries of the Commonwealth, in its second Preamble recites thus:
"Inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
The Royal Style and Titles were altered in 1927, and in 1947 conditions in Eire and India necessitated further changes. Fortunately, the Commonwealth Conference at the end of last year afforded an occasion for discussing the whole subject. I think we all felt that those discussions were as opportune as their outcome was felicitous.
There were other considerations, besides those relating to the Irish Republic and India, which made a further alteration in the Title desirable. There was a feeling in other Member countries of the Commonwealth, which we in the United Kingdom fully shared, that the Title should reflect clearly what is now the established constitutional position: that the Sovereign stands in exactly the same relation to each of those countries as to the United Kingdom, and that for this purpose the names of the other countries

1291
should be included in the Title no less than the name of this country. The conclusion was reached that the best course would be for each country to use a form of Title which would suit its own particular circumstances, while at the same time embodying, to the largest possible extent, an element common to all. The Title as used in all the countries concerned will include the phrase "Head of the Commonwealth" and a reference to Her Majesty's other Realms and Territories. Your Lordships will, I think, agree that we thus achieve, in complete accord, a happy reconciliation of the unity and diversity which characterise the British Commonwealth.
Adoption by each Commonwealth country of the Royal Style and Title it chooses will emphasise and enhance the relationship of the Queen to all her peoples, as it affirms the love and loyalty felt for Her Majesty throughout her Realms. As I have said, the titles which other Commonwealth countries are adopting emphasise that Her Majesty is their Queen as much as ours. "Queen of Canada"; "Queen of Ceylon"—the oldest and the youngest. But significant and important as this is, it is in reality nothing new. Lord Balfour in the introduction which he wrote to Bagehot's English Constitution, and which contains so much of the wisdom he contributed to the Conference of the Commonwealth in 1926 says this:
"The King is the chief of a nation—the chief indeed of many nations. He is everybody's King; by which I do not so much mean that he is the ruler of the Empire, as that he is the common possession of every part of it."
In the debate in the Canadian Parliament, Mr. Pearson told how the title, "Queen of Canada," fulfilled Sir John Macdonald's hope at the start of Confederation that the country of Canada might bear the title, the Kingdom of Canada. Your Lordships will also have noted that the Titles in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan all refer to Her Majesty as Queen of the United Kingdom. Thus the Canadian Title runs, "Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen." As the Prime Minister of Canada explained, introducing the Canadian Bill, this was no mere compliment to the United Kingdom, but an
1292
explicit recognition (to quote his own words) that
"it is the Sovereign, who is recognised as the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, who is our Sovereign."
So to-day I move this Bill, which has its counterpart in the other countries of the Commonwealth. And when each of us has taken the action appropriate to our Constitutions, there will be one further demonstration of the unity of the Commonwealth. The seven Proclamations proclaiming the Queen's Titles will be made throughout the Commonwealth on the same day. "God save the Queen!" I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Swinton.)
3.12 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I rise to give my cordial support to the Motion which the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House has moved and to trouble your Lordships for a brief moment only to say why I so strongly support this step. I think it is a significant fact that here for a moment we lay aside the rancour and asperity of the Committee on the Transport Bill and turn to a subject, and one which I venture to think is far more important, on which we are absolutely at one. The fact that we at home in this little country all feel the same about this is surely a splendid thing. The Crown is a symbol of our underlying unity, which prevents disaster even though it be the fact that the House is divided against itself in other respects, and at the same time the Crown enshrines the great traditions of the past and our hopes for the future.
When I was a young man studying constitutional law, I used to be told that constitutionally the conception of the British Empire, as it was then, was incomprehensible. If I may borrow the language of St. Athanasius, we have now not only one incomprehensible but seven incomprehensibles. Although the constitutional position may defy logic, I venture to think that it works very well. I would have commended these proposals to your Lordships even though I disagreed with them, because they are based on an agreement which was hammered out by common

1293
consent. But it so happens that I agree with every conclusion come to on this occasion. I think the Government were wise not to insist on the continuance of the word "British." It is unfortunate that this adjective is connected with two wholly different concepts. When we talk or when we used to talk about "British Railways" or "British Transport," we used "British" in a local sense; but when we spoke of the British Empire, we used it in a very different sense. I remember the Canadian representative, at the Imperial Conference, in 1930, making this very point. The documents before the Cabinet in those days, and indeed ever since Lord Rosebery's time, had this legend on their front pages:
"This document is the property of His Britannic Majesty's Government."
The Canadian representative drew attention to that legend and pointed out the two different senses of the word "British."
I think, too, that the Government are wise to drop the word "Dominion." I believe that the word "Dominion" had come to connote a status, I will not say inferior, but certainly not quite equal to that enjoyed by this country. The whole conception of our British Commonwealth is that we are all completely equal amongst ourselves. I think the conception of putting in the words "Head of the Commonwealth" was a great inspiration. I believe that if those words had been there in the old days, when Burma was considering whether she should or should not remain in the Commonwealth, they might have made all the difference. I am sorry that there seems to be some slight anxiety in Scotland at the Title, "Elizabeth II."I do not know whether there was the same anxiety at the accession of William IV or Edward VII or the Georges, but let us hope that if ever a Monarch succeeds to the Throne bearing the name of Robert, he wilt be known as Robert IV—or perhaps it is III: my Scottish history is not good. I should like to associate myself with the fine words spoken to-day by the Deputy Leader of the House and to assure the House that this Bill has the entire and cordial support of Her Majesty's Opposition.
3.16 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Samuel, who much regrets that he is not able to be present to-day, I rise from these Benches to give cordial and full support to this measure. I think your Lordships will agree that this Bill though small, is nevertheless a notable one in constitutional history. I would congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the honour which they have in putting on the Statute Book a measure which can hardly fail to bind closer all the Members of the British Commonwealth in loyal devotion to their Queen.
3.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, while this debate on the Royal Titles Bill is, in the interests of time, merely a first Order before the more prolonged discussion on the Committee stage of the Transport Bill, it will be a pity if we do not fully realise the vast constitutional importance of the measure which is now before the House. It is a measure which, by its Preamble, declares that the object of Parliament is:
"to reflect more clearly the existing constitutional relations of members of the Commonwealth to one another, and their recognition of the Crown as the symbol of their free association and of the Sovereign as the Head of the Commonwealth."
The contents of the Bill are particularly striking for a reason which has already been mentioned by the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition: the complete omission of the word "Dominions" from its language.
I have some reason to appreciate the importance of that omission, for when the Indian Commission, over which I presided a quarter of a century ago, were about to produce their Report, the Government of that day, without our assent, issued a declaration that in their opinion
"the natural issue of India's constitutional progress is the attainment of Dominion status."
I have always thought that that announcement was unwise and paid little consideration to the particular problem of the development both of the British Commonwealth and of India. Subsequent events have carried us far beyond the conception of Dominion status, and I am glad that the use of the word is now, by common consent, abandoned. It marked an advance at the time of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, and the Balfour

1295
Declaration which preceded it, but it is now demoded and quite out of date.
There is another observation to be made, which is suggested by the speech of the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading. It is a curious fact about the Statute of Westminster, 1931, that one of its recitals was to the effect that it would have been in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that
"any alteration in the law touching the Royal Style and Titles should hereafter require the assent as well as of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
But, though this was stated by way of recital, there is no section in the Statute of Westminster which deals with the point. This Bill, though it has an operation only within the boundaries of the United Kingdom and all other territories for whose foreign relations the Government of the United Kingdom are responsible, is to be accompanied, as we are told—and I gather from the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is already accompanied—by new legislation in the other Commonwealth countries. Indeed I believe that Her Majesty is already by Canadian law the Queen of Canada, just as one of the earlier founders of the Canadian Constitution urged she should be.
May I be allowed to make one other brief observation? There is, I think, a danger in the over-emphasis which is sometimes employed in insisting upon the divisibility of the Crown. The Crown is, no doubt, divisible in its local aspects and functions, when the Sovereign follows the advice of separate Ministries, but in matters of common concern we can only hope that the advice will be consistent. It would be unfortunate, for example, if a Ministry in one part of the Commonwealth advised the Sovereign to issue a proclamation of war, while another Ministry advised the Crown to make a declaration of neutrality. We might have had, as I well remember, a similar divergence at the time of the Abdication, for our Abdication Act altered the law touching the succession to the Throne, and that is certainly a matter on which common agreement throughout the Commonwealth is desired, and common agreement
1296
was forthcoming. The truth is that the Crown is indivisible, in the sense that it is a single historic Crown, devolving according to a recognised right of succession. It is not a purely personal union in the same individual, such as existed between the Crowns of this country and of Hanover from the accession of George I to the death of William IV, or like the casual union of the Austrian Imperial Crown with the Crown of St. Stephen in Hungary.
The important thing, as it seems to me, is that as between members of the Commonwealth which have retained the Crown there is a common status of loyal subject which every citizen enjoys and shares with every other. That is the real basis for confidence in the future of the Commonwealth. We are taking part to-day in the passing of a most significant Act, for this Bill is one further proof that the Commonwealth is not a merely mechanical arrangement, but is a thing of life and growth which pervades and inspires the hopes and devotion of us all.
3.26 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have been asked by the Secretary of the Scottish National Party—to which I do not belong—to say a few words to-day upon the numbering of Her Majesty as Queen Elizabeth II, to which the noble and learned Earl opposite has referred. I am going to begin by saying that, so far as I can make out, nearly every responsible Scotsman I have met deplores and laments the outburst of lawlessness and violence that has greeted the appearance of Her Majesty's monogram in Scotland. I share that feeling most strongly. It would have been a very charming thing—and I believe Queen Anne intended it—if, when the two countries sunk their individualities and obliterated their ancient kingdoms to form the kingdom of Great Britain, the renumbering had taken place at that time. But, of course, the objection is very much stronger now than it was then, because, as your Lordships know, the real difficulty in this case is that in all lawsuits and litigation of any kind it is important to be able to cite rapidly and with complete certainty the laws and Statutes to which reference is made; and as those Statutes are named after the monarchs in whose names they run, it is absolutely necessary to be able to refer to each King or Queen without doubt.

1297
Therefore, the only way in which that can be done is to have the highest number in use in either country.
The Government were perfectly aware of the trouble that was likely to arise immediately on Her Majesty's Accession. I submit that this difficulty—which I certainly have never found a way to get over—and this fact should have been prominently put forward at that time. If people in Scotland were opposed to the numbering that Her Majesty, under advice, decided upon, it would have been very good for them to try and find a way out of that difficulty. I am always in favour of asking people to use their brains before they start using their hands. However that may be, the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite is one with which I have also toyed—namely, that unless this position can be clearly understood and explained in Scotland, the best hope we can have is that when Prince Charles comes to reign—and I hope it may be a very long time before that happens—he may choose to assume the style and reign in the name either of David III or Robert IV, or whatever it may be.
I should like to point out to your Lordships that the numbering of the English Kings from the Conquest is really an injury much more to England than to Scotland or any other country. For us in Scotland, apart from being the representative of our great and ancient line of Kings, the principal ornaments of the blood royal are two, I think one is its connection with the ancient Saxon Royal House, through St. Margaret; and the other is its connection with the blood of St. Columba himself, through King Duncan. I should have thought, from the English point of view, that the great ornament of the blood royal would be its connection with the ancient Kings of England, and the blood of Edward the Martyr, through Queen Edith the Queen of Henry I.
But your Lordships will remember what happened. I think it was Edward III who called himself "Third since the Conquest," and your Lordships will remember that what really happened was this. When William the Norman came over, he claimed as heir of Edward the Confessor, and when he had conquered and settled the country he realised that the whole thing would dissolve if it
1298
passed to Robert. Therefore, he had to enable himself to pass the Crown to his second son, Rufus; and, in order to do that, he made England Conquest, which, as your Lordships are aware, is territorial property acquired outside feudal inheritance. I myself think that the Title he took from Edward the Confessor would have sufficed for it, but he was on the spot and judged otherwise. Because of that fact, his second son succeeded him, and after him, Henry, his younger brother, because, of course, in feudal law heritage goes down and not up. That fact has obscured the really ancient descent of the British Royal. Family from the ancient Kings of England; and, I suppose, that, owing to this unfortunate trouble in quoting Statutes, this will always prevail.
It is a disadvantage to England in another way which is far more important; and it is this. Every Scottish boy, when he learns Scottish history, learns the dates of the Kings of his country, and he gets a ladder of dates going back into the mists of antiquity in which he can insert every event that he learns went on in the world outside. The same is true of the French boy who goes back to those horrible Frankish Kings, with their terrible or unfortunate wives, and right back to the gates of the Roman Empire. But in England, as somebody said to me the other day, "That goes back to the Conquest, and nothing happened before the Conquest." No Englishman, so far as I can see, ever learns that anything happened in the world before the Conquest. I think it is a great misfortune to England, and a really practical one which I myself have experienced, that they should number the Kings and Queens of England from that date.
3.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, it is perhaps appropriate that on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should conclude this debate with a very few words. This Bill appears to me to be the affirmation of Her Majesty's subjects in this United Kingdom of a new faith. In the words of the Preamble to the Bill, it affirms their recognition of the Crown as the symbol of the free association of the Members of the Commonwealth of whom they are one, and of this Sovereign as

1299
the Head of the Commonwealth. That is a new conception in the history of the world, and we rejoice that it is out of the genius of our people that there has been born an idea that binds together so large a part of the world in bonds of a common loyalty. May we not rejoice, too, that it is in the person of Her Gracious Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, that we see the first flowering of that conception which will, we believe, cherish and foster throughout the world the ideals of freedom and of peace, for which our people have fought and died and for which they now stand?
But this Bill, too—and perhaps for us this means most of all—recognises the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, as the Queen of this Realm of England and Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are united under one Crown. It is one United Realm which now, for a period of time that can count its centuries, has shared under one King or Queen, good times and ill, glory and tribulation. We will not mar this day by controversy whether the Queen's Title should be Elizabeth I or Elizabeth II. Whatever number is chosen, the pedant may find fault he can find historical error whatever choice is made. It will surely accord with our tradition and history if, in all parts of this Realm, we accept without demur the Title which has found favour elsewhere throughout the Commonwealth, and with one heart and voice acclaim Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories, Queen.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT ON THE SUDAN
3.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, before we go into Committee, I have now received a copy of the statement which I promised I would read to the House. It was in answer to the following Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered reports
1300
alleging that General Neguib has complained of breaches of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement on the Sudan, and if he has any statement to make. This is the statement which my right honourable friend has just made.
"I understand that General Neguib held a Press conference yesterday, in which he is reported to have made a number of allegations about breaches of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement on the Sudan. I have asked for full information from the Governor-General on all these allegations. There is, however, one with which I wish to deal today. It has been said that we are delaying the elections in the Sudan by refusing to accept the two Sudanese members of the Governor-General's Commission nominated by the Sudanese and approved by the Egyptian Government. The facts are as follows.
"On February 25 a meeting of representatives of all four Sudanese Northern political parties voted upon the names of five candidates for the two places to be filled by Sudanese on the Governor-General's Commission. Of these five candidates, Mohammed el Hassan el Diab received three votes, I brahim Ahmen two votes, and the remainder one vote each. The parties sent the Governor-General and the Egyptian Staff Officer in the Sudan a formal letter informing them of this. On March 2 Her Majesty's Ambassador at Cairo formally proposed to the Egyptian Government the nomination of the two candidates who had received three votes and two votes respectively. So far as I am aware the Egyptian Government have not formally nominated any candidates. Meanwhile, however, the Egyptian Government have been seeking to promote the candidature of a new candidate, Dardiri Mohammed Osman, who I understand supports a closer association between Egypt and the Sudan, and one of the candidates who had received only one vote stood down in his favour. No votes have yet been cast for him by any of the Sudanese political Parties.
"It will thus be seen that Her Majesty's Government have throughout supported the wishes of the Sudanese themselves and we hold the view that,

1301
unless the representatives of the political Parties inform us that they have altered their decision of February 25, the candidates who then received most votes should be nominated. Far from any delay having been caused by Her Majesty's Government, the delay over the appointment of the Sudanese members of the Governor-General's Commission appears now clearly to be due to Egyptian unwillingness to accept the candidates proposed by the Sudanese themselves.
"I would like to add that Her Majesty's Government strongly deprecate this attempt to conduct diplomacy by means of inflammatory statements to the Press. If the Egyptian Government have complaints to make, they should be made either to the Governor-General of the Sudan direct or to Her Majesty's Government through normal diplomatic channels. I have this morning made strong representations to this effect to the Egyptian Ambassador in London, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Cairo has also beer, instructed to do the same to the Egyptian Government.
"I would recall the statement"—made in this House on February 12 by my noble friend Lord Reading —
"to the effect that it is the resolve of Her Majesty's Government that the Sudanese shall freely decide their own future. That statement stands, and we are determined to ensure that the Sudanese shall have the right to express their views free from interference or unfair pressure from any quarter."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount, first, when we shall have a copy of the report from the Governor-General relating to events in the Southern Provinces? Secondly, may I ask him whether this matter is likely to delay the Elections until the rainy period?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In reply to the noble Viscount's first Question, I should be glad if he would put a Question on the Order Paper. I cannot answer a supplementary question on a matter about which I have nor the faintest idea and which concerns another Department. It does not, I think, seem unreasonable that I should ask him to put a Question on the
1302
Order Paper. As regards the second question, there has certainly been no delay on our part. How much delay is going to result from the action by the Egyptians I cannot say.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I did not intend to press the noble Viscount. I ask this question because it is obviously vitally necessary to have information as soon as possible about these events in the Southern Provinces. I did not ask who was responsible for the delay but whether the delay would be such as to postpone the Elections until later in the year.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If it were possible to say how much further delay the Egyptian Government are going to impose I should be able to answer the question. As regards the other question, I have given to the House all the facts I. have at my disposal, and I will certainly give to this House—as am sure my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will to another place—any further information as soon as we have it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, on a matter of procedure, may I ask the noble Viscount whether in the reply he gave just now he was giving a direct quotation from a Question and Answer made in another place?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes. I was following the procedure which, as the noble Viscount was informed by myself as leading the House, by the Leader of the Opposition and by his own Leader the other day, is a recognised practice which has obtained in this House for as long as any of us has been here.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: But is it not a fact that when I made a quotation recently from a Question and Answer given by the Minister in another place I was told by the noble Viscount that I was out of order? Is there one law for a Minister on the Front Bench and another law for Back-benchers?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There is no different law for anybody in this House, but, in time, if the noble Viscount survives long enough, he will learn the very simple procedure and practice of this House. There are few rules, but one is that you do not quote from speeches made in another place unless those

1303
speeches contain a statement of policy by another Minister. It is an accepted exception, and it has also been a recognised practice, which is for the convenience and courtesy of both Houses, that when an important statement of fact is going to be made on behalf of the Government, or a statement of policy, that that statement is made concurrently and in identical terms in both Houses. I hope the noble Viscount will grasp that.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is the noble Viscount aware, while he is throwing bricks at my noble friend, that my noble friend's parliamentary experience is far longer than his own?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Not in this House, I think.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would it not be the correct procedure to arrange for someone to put a Question to the Minister?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The normal procedure would be to put a Question, and if necessary I should be glad to make a statement.

TRANSPORT BILL
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 14:
Re-organisation of railways
14.—

(1) Within twelve months from the passing of this Act or such longer period as the Minister may allow, the Commission shall prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme for the re-organisation of that part of their undertaking which consists in the operation of the railways.

(2) The said scheme shall provide—

(a) for the abolition (if it has not already been abolished) of the Railway Executive; and

(b) for the setting up, for such areas as may be specified by or under the scheme, of such authorities as may be so specified; and

1304

(c) for the delegation to those authorities of such functions of the Commission relating to that part of their undertaking as may be so specified in relation to those authorities respectively.

(6) The scheme may—

(a) entrust to any authority set up under the scheme, or otherwise deal with, functions of the Commission not concerned or directly concerned with the operation of the railways if it appears to the Commission or to the Minister to be necessary or expedient that those matters should be entrusted to those authorities or so dealt with by the scheme;

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert the following new subsection:
"(1) The Minister shall appoint a committee of not less than six persons who after hearing evidence from the British Transport Commission and other suitable bodies will submit to the Minister a scheme for the reorganisation of that part of the undertaking which consists of the management and operation of the railways."
The noble Viscount said: I fear it is going from the sublime to the ridiculous, after the very important discussion we have had on constitutional procedure, to turn to the railway provisions of this Bill, though they are, of course, very important indeed. Even so, perhaps they are not so important as the matter which we have just been discussing. Clause 14 is the railway clause of this Bill and it is. I think we shall all agree, of enormous importance because on what happens to this clause will depend the future management and control of the great railway system of this country. I am certain that all your Lordships are most anxious, whatever is decided, that the railway systems should be of the best. The Bill lays down that the Minister is to consult the British Transport Commission as to the best way in which the railway organisation can function in the future. I wondered when I put down this Amendment whether that really is the best way of arriving at a satisfactory arrangement as to how the railways are to be run.
We must remember what the position is. In 1947 the Act was passed setting up the British Transport Commission. Under the Act was set up also the Railway Executive. The rest of the picture was not filled in at all by Her Majesty's

1305
Government. Those two bodies were given pretty well carte blanche to design and lay out the future railway organisation of the country. They get together, and as a result of discussion and consideration they came to the conclusion that the way in which the railway systems of this country should be run was by a highly centralised functional organisation. We have now had considerable experience of that decision and I think there is no doubt that in the opinion of a great many people in this country far more capable than I am of judging, this functional organisation has been far too centralised, and that it has had a cramping effect and an unsatisfactory reaction on the running of railways in this country.
Therefore, one questions the wisdom of Her Majesty's Government in inviting the British Transport Commission to set up arrangements again whereby a new organisation should be established for the railways. We know already what their views are, and a good many people think that those views have not been satisfactory. Therefore it would appear that if anybody is to be asked to advise the Minister on the organisation it should be another body, not the body—the British Transport Commission—who have already tried and, in the view of many people, failed. It seems to me then that we should ask the Minister to set up a Committee of not fewer that six persons, who should examine the British Transport Commission and find out from them what their views are as to how the railway management should be modified. They would also have the opportunity of talking to the Railway Executive, who are still in existence, and of discussing the matter with the various regional managers of the different railway systems. An independent body would be able to approach this matter with a new outlook and get the views of all the people who are most closely interested in the matter. This Committee would then be able, in an entirely unbiased manner to advise the Minister.
We are not the only country that has had railway difficulties. As we know, France has had them, and I think I am right in saying that they had a deficit last year of something like £ 90 million. We do not want to copy that deficit of £ 90 million but, at the same time, there are many interesting developments going
1306
on in France which it might be worth while examining here. There is also an interesting example in Holland at the present time. The Dutch railways are practically the only railway system in the world that is paying. It seems to me that if we could set up a Committee of this kind to examine the position in this country, with the help of the bodies I have already mentioned, we might look a little further a field, not to be too insular, and find out what other people are doing. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider accepting the Amendment which I have down. It would enable fresh minds to view these intricate and complicated problems without any biased views, and would probably enable us to come to a right conclusion as to the best way in which this extremely important organisation could be run in the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 22, leave cut subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not know whether this course would be convenient, but there are two Amendments here which are almost, though not exactly, the same: one is mandatory and the other is permissive. I propose to deal with both Amendments together, because I cannot deal with one without dealing with the other. I thought it would be for the convenience and expedition of the House if the two Amendments, that is Nos. 55 and 56, were discussed together. Would that be convenient? They seem to raise exactly the same issues except that one is mandatory and the other is permissive.
LORD WOLVERTON: One relates to the Minister and the other does not. They are not quite the same.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am afraid I must deal with both Amendments in any answer I give, because I could not make an intelligent answer on one, but I will do whatever the House wishes. I do not want to be thought to be anticipating. On the other hand, I cannot make an intelligent and responsible answer to the Amendment which is now before the House without dealing also with the reasons why I think the next Amendment is not very helpful.
EARL JOWITT: The normal practice would be that the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, should speak now and embrace this Amendment with the first; then that other noble Lords should speak; then, after they have all spoken, the noble Viscount should speak generally on the discussion; and then, if necessary, we could probably deal with the two Amendments in one. There is only one Amendment before us at the moment, I agree.
LORD WOLVERTON: May I speak on my Amendment?
EARL JOWITT: Yes.
LORD WOLVERTON: I am moving it on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Bridgeman, and I do not want to do it wrongly.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord cannot move his Amendment; but he can speak on it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord can speak as if both Amendments were before the House.
LORD HAWKE: The two Amendments are really quite different. The convenient procedure for us, whose names are attached to the second of these two Amendments, at any rate, would be to hear the Deputy Leader's answer to the first Amendment and then, if he accepts it, we may even not move the second Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am entirely in the hands of the House. If the House would like me to speak now, I will gladly do so.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Is the noble Viscount going to deal with this Amendment or would it be proper to say something about it later?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should not be closing the debate in any way. If I may speak now, I will give the general view of the Government. The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, has explained this Amendment clearly. The Bill provides that the Commission is to prepare the railway reorganisation scheme and submit it to the Minister. The Minister, before he comes to a conclusion and
1308
submits the scheme to Parliament, is bound to consult the appropriate bodies about it. Long before it comes to the Minister, the Commission will have been studying all the time the needs of its customers. After all, the main object of reorganisation is to give the best service, in tune with local needs. No doubt, the Commission will be taking soundings from traders all the time they are preparing their scheme. Finally, of course, the scheme is laid in draft. We have then to debate it; there will be a full debate upon it, and ultimately it has to receive an Affirmative Resolution,
The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, proposes to substitute for the Commission as the preparers of the scheme an independent committee. The Amendment which is going to be moved presently does not impose a duty, but says that the Minister may, if he pleases, appoint, as an alternative to the Commission, an independent committee; so I think I was fair in saying that in one case the Amendment is mandatory and in the other case it is permissive. Whichever course is adopted, I think that the method of an independent committee would result in a long delay, and I am sure that none of us wants that. Indeed, great emphasis has been laid on the importance of getting decentralisation as quickly as we can. Suppose we appoint an independent committee. It would have to learn the whole of the complex problems of the railways, the central problems and the problems in every region. It would also have to learn and consider the reaction of other forms of transport on the railways, and it would have to make itself familiar with a mass of information and evidence which has accumulated and is accumulating all the time with the Commission and the Railway Executive, bearing on all these matters.
Suppose we appointed a committee of this kind. What are going to be the relations of that body to the Transport Commission itself? Either it will have to be working with them all the way through, indeed sitting in with them, or, without continual contact with the Commission, it will arrive at tentative conclusions which may be vitiated by information which the Commission then produce. Certainly the Minister would need to have the views of the Commission as well as the views of the committee of inquiry.

1309
Unless this body, this independent committee, was working with the Transport Commission day by day, there might easily be a situation in which the Transport Commission was, so to speak, put on the defensive. We come to the conclusion—at least, those who have examined this point afresh with the Ministry and all the other advisers feel certain that it really is essential that the Commission, working all the time, preparing its schemes in the interests of the passengers and traders it has to serve, is the right body to do this.
I have given a great deal of thought to this matter, and I have tried to apply to it all such experience as I myself have had and have seen in the reorganisation of businesses. Let me put this to Lord Falmouth, who I am sure has had this kind of experience in business. If he wants to reorganise a business of which he is chairman, surely he would say, "This reorganisation must be carried out by the board of the company, and by the whole executive and administrative machine working under it," though of course there would be broad directives as to the object to be attained and the general principles to be followed. Not only must you have the experience which resides in the board, and in the company itself, but if you are going to make a reorganisation successful, you must carry with you, in all the work involved, the experience of the board and the company, coupled with the good will and the keenness of those who have got to work the plan. They must be imbued from the start with the right ideas, and they must work keenly as a team to make those ideas effective in action. We all want the same thing in regard to this—at least, most of us do. But for all those reasons, I feel sure that the Committee would be right in saying that the people who should frame this scheme and submit it to the Minister are the Transport Commission.
I am not casting aspersions on committees as such—often they are very good bodies, and are satisfactory in the right place. I think it was Dr. Johnson who said: "A cow is a very good animal in a field, but we turn her out of a garden," and Boswell, commenting on this, said, "Lord Elibank used to repeat that this was an illustration uncommonly apt."
1310
I do not think that it is altogether inapt here. The Committee will have seen that, if I am right in all the reasons I have adduced as to why this inquiry should be conducted by the Commission, and the work done by the Commission, those arguments apply equally whether the Amendment is obligatory or permissive. It would not be honest of the Minister to accept an Amendment, saying, "I can delegate the whole of the work of the Commission in this respect to a Committee," if in his heart he knew that he had no intention of doing anything of the sort. I feel that it would be the wrong thing to do. It would be easy to accept this Amendment but, quite frankly. I do not like doing business that way. If the Minister does not mean to do this, then I do not think it would be right or proper to accept an Amendment which says that he can do it. Of course, both the Commission and the Minister can bring in to help anybody they wish, but for the reasons I have given I hope the Committee will feel that the Commission are the right people for the job.
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I begin by saying that I was touched by the reference of the noble Viscount to my ancestor, the fifth Baron? He was the only Scot for whom Dr. Johnson had any real respect or regard. But now let us see where his arguments have led the noble Viscount on this particular Amendment. He has suggested, equivalently to the experience of a commercial company, that it is far better in this case to let the board settle the matter—the board being the Transport Commission. But yesterday or the day before, when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas moved an Amendment to disallow the Disposal Board to operate in place of the Transport Commission, the noble Viscount turned him down—I think I am within the recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in that respect. The noble Viscount has said that it would be difficult to get together a body such as is suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, in this Amendment. I do not think so. I think there are men of experience among some of the old railway company chairmen, and men like Mr. Roger Sewill of the road haulage set-up. They would be perfectly willing to sit on such a committee.

1311
On the other hand, I am rather disposed to agree that the Transport Commission is the right body to settle this particular question. Whilst I agree with the noble Viscount there, I do so with this reservation: I think it is a great pity that before this Bill was drafted the Transport Commission were not consulted. Had that been done, I think we should have had an infinitely better Bill. On this Amendment, I think that, on the whole, the best thing is to let the British Transport Commission get on with the job. They will, of course, take advantage of all the experience outside, as well as inside, the Commission.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Speaking on this Amendment, I would venture to disagree, to some extent, with the noble Viscount, the Deputy Leader of the House, when he put forward his illustration for reorganising a company. He said that it was a matter which could be referred to the board of that company, who would have a clear indication of what they were to do. Had we in this Bill a clear enough indication of how this was to be done, I should have said that that procedure would be right. But I feel that the whole of Clause 14 is far too indefinite. There are references to three different kinds of possible authorities; there are references to working out the system of the co-operation of those three bodies. I do not think that is a clear enough line to work on. It has been said that the Minister, by close collaboration with the Commission, can from time to time discuss the progress of the investigation. No doubt he will. But from what we see in the Bill, what I fear is that there is no very clear idea in the mind of the Minister as to what organisation he wishes to produce. I feel, also, that the Transport Commission cannot really be expected to think up an idea for him.
One must be realistic in these matters. The Transport Commission (I am not, of course, referring to individuals, but to the body as a whole) were appointed by the late Government to work out and operate the highly centralised system set up by the 1947 Act. It seems clear to me that that is how their minds have had—and under the law, rightly, to be focused on the problem before them. When the 1947 Act was passing through
1312
this House a number of noble Lords said they felt quite sure that the question of who owned the railways was not so important as that of how they were run. Here we are back on this problem. As I have said, the Commission were instructed to weld together into one unit the whole of the railway system, and within the limitations of the system which they have had to work they have done it remarkably well. Is it fair to ask them to take it all to pieces again? I do not believe that it is.
I think that it is perfectly possible to collect together six, eight or more people to apply to the railway system methods of administration which can be copied from results. It is not entirely a technical problem in relation to railway operation. It is a question of how to apply to a railway a system of devolution such as would be applicable to a very large industry, with modification as it goes along. That is why I think the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, is right in saying that the committee should be an outside body composed of men of experience in every direction—no doubt including one or two members of the Commission, and possibly, also, a member of the Railway Executive, who have actual experience of railway operation. By that means I feel that we shall get a much clearer view of what is required. It has been suggested that there will be delay. We shall certainly have some delay, because this clause is indefinite as to what it is wished to deal with and how it is to be achieved. But, to come to the problem of the reserved subjects—financial control, control of wage negotiations, control of general policy on rates—these are some of the things which may be reserved to the Commission. But having reserved particularly the question of finance, it is surely possible to conduct a system whereby those who undertake part of the running of the system proposed are given responsibility for what they do. I think that is a new idea, and something has been evolved in that direction. That is why I support the suggestion to have people outside who would be best equipped to reach the most acceptable solution.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Our position on this side of the House with regard to the Amendment is this. The Commission enjoy the confidence of the Government. In point of fact, since

1313
this Government has been in power their friends of the British Transport Commission have been singularly embarrassing in their attitude towards it. It is a case, in reverse, of hate being turned to love. The Commission have done an exceptionally good job of work. The only handicap which the Commission suffered in the past was the unfortunate system they had to operate; there was nothing wrong with the Commission itself. Who does the noble Viscount think are these people outside the Commission who will tell the Commission how to reorganise their business? I suppose that, apart from the noble Lords sitting in your Lordships' House, the Commission contain people who know most about the running of railways. They have the best brains in this country, when it comes to the running of a railway system. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment which the Opposition have put down later in the Order Paper. We are seeking to amend the constitution of the Commission, but we on this side of the House are quite satisfied that the best people to reorganise the railways of this country are the people who have the responsibility of running them at the present time.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I have listened with great interest to the various speakers. There seems to be an opinion that there will be unnecessary delay; that under the proposal there will be a great deal of passing backwards and forwards, the Minister sending it back and saying, "I cannot accept this" and that this result may go on for a long time. The present idea is to do away with the Railway Executive. But the Railway Executive can easily be telescoped into the British Transport Commission, and under another name we may get exactly the same functions performed by the same body. I do not want to press this Amendment. I am sorry that the noble Viscount will not accept it. Another point I would mention is that under the present scheme the Transport Commission are to be judge and jury in their own case. It is not as if the Transport Commission are going out of existence: they will still be in a very important position. It is for somebody else to say what their functions shall or shall not be under this Bill. It is not right that they should be judge and jury in their own case when this Bill becomes law.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure the solution which depends upon the bringing in of an outside body is not right, but—and I am saying nothing at all derogatory of the Commission—there is a feeling that if the Commission or the Executive have conducted their business in a certain way they will not be overenthusiastic about conducting it in a different way, and they may not be the best people to make the plan. If one wanted to reform the Church, one would not select as reformers those who were dogmatically wedded to a particular practice which was under consideration. The noble Viscount has said that this is left rather vague. I admit it is; and it is easy to found a little more than a dialectical argument on that point. But at the same time you may get into great danger if you lay down principles too definitely. Under the literal structure of the Bill the Commission, first of all, will do something, and then the matter will go to the Minister. And it is said that there may be much cross-reference and delay. But those of us who have been Ministers—and there are many in this House—know that that is not the way the thing works in practice. A good deal of informal talk goes on which is not strictly, so to speak, within the constitution. That is the way the thing works.
I would add this. I have no authority for saying what I am about to say, and I am frightfully indiscreet at times. It may be found, on examination, that my remarks are not all sensible, or at any rate not all agreeable. But, after all, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, so often used to say, in this place we act on instructions. At any rate, the Commission is to be enlarged and a good deal of new blood will come in. That, I suppose, will take place at some time about August. We do not want any unnecessary delay. The Commission, as I say, will be enlarged, and we shall come later to consideration of the question as to whether it ought not to be a bit larger than is now laid down in this Bill. But we shall consider that matter hereafter, and I shall approach it with a perfectly open mind. So there will not only be new blood, but more people to do the job.
In my view, without our putting anything fresh into the Bill, the Commission

1315
have power to bring in anyone they like to help them on this. I have an idea—I do not know whether it would work at all well—that it might be a good thing particularly before the Commission is enlarged, if that power were exercised. The Minister might say: "I think you are going to be rather overworked. Would it not be a help to bring in two or three people who, working with you—not working opposite to you, but working with you—would help you in this task?" It may well be that two or three people working in that way, working in the spirit of the machine, would be very useful. I do not know whether I am indiscreet to throw out that idea, but I throw it out for what it is worth. And I am ready to discuss it with the Minister and his Department without any sort of undertaking that they may not reject it completely. We are trying to carry out this task without any preconceived ideas. The noble Viscount kindly said that he would not press this Amendment and that he was prepared to withdraw it. I should like to consider the matter a little later on, on these lines, and see whether we could reinforce the Commission—of course, you would have to be sure of the good will of the Commission—so that the Commission could be fortified to do their work in the best possible way.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.23 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and" and to insert "or cause to be prepared, and shall." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, who has asked me to offer his sincere apologies to your Lordships for not being able to be here to-day to move this Amendment, I beg to submit it for the consideration of the Committee. The object of this Amendment is to give the Commission a discretion in delegating to some other body a proportion of the work connected with the reorganisation scheme. If the Amendment is accepted, the passage in the Bill will read:
"Within twelve months of the passing of this Act or such longer period as the Minister may
1316
allow, the Commission shall prepare or cause to be prepared, and shall submit to the Minister a scheme for the reorganisation of that part of their undertaking which consists in the operation of the railways."
In view of what the noble Viscount, the Deputy Leader, has said on the last Amendment, perhaps we can have an assurance that it will be possible to bring in outside people to help the Commission. That would go a long way to allay our fear.
My noble friends and myself feel strongly that if you are going to do away with the Railway Executive, the chief regional officers should come in and help in the preparation of any scheme of reorganisation. If there is going to be reorganisation of the railways the work should be delegated down on a regional basis. We think these experts are the right men to come into a Committee, to help plan and put to the Minister, after consultation with outside bodies, a scheme of reorganisation, which will be the subject of draft regulations to be submitted to Parliament for approval and adoption. We did not feel that the Commission were entirely the right people, as a body, to do it. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said, there was a tendency to over-centralise, and now we should try to decentralise the railways into regions. This is an entirely permissive Amendment. It does not go half so far as the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth. That seemed to my noble friends and myself to go too far, as it put a duty upon the Minister, whereas this Amendment, as I say, is entirely permissive. We thought that without an Amendment of this kind it might be found that the Commission had not the necessary powers of delegation to set up an outside committee. For those reasons I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 24, leave out ("and") and insert ("or cause to be prepared, and shall")—(Lord Wolverton)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I trust that my noble friend will not think me discourteous if I do not repeat in reply to him all that I said in the course of the discussions which we have had on the previous Amendment. I do not think that in the circumstances the noble Lord will want to press this Amendment. If I find that there is any via media, or any way in which we can help, we shall no doubt have to return to the point at a later stage.
LORD HAWKE: I am perfectly satisfied with what the noble Viscount said, because I gather from it that the Commission can well form what might be called an inter-departmental committee of themselves, and include employees of the Railway Executive, to prepare this scheme. If that is the case, I would not advise my noble friend to go on with this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure the Commission could do that without any Amendment being made at this point.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I do not know that it is clear that that is so. I do not quite agree with the noble Viscount. This Amendment is very different from the first Amendment. As the noble Lord has said, it is a permissive Amendment. In fact, I should have thought that it would strengthen the Commission's hands to have the power to set up a committee of experts to help them to prepare a scheme of this importance and magnitude. The noble Viscount quoted commercial experience. The board of a company, if they were envisaging a scheme of development for their works, or an alteration scheme, would not prepare the scheme themselves; they would delegate the task of preparing it to a committee of experts. When the scheme had been prepared they would carefully study it, and then, presumably, would submit it or would not submit it to their superior—in this instance the Minister. I feel that this Amendment ought to be inserted in the Bill, because it would strengthen the hands of the Commission and allow them to set up a departmental committee if they wished to do so.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: May we be told whether any effect is achieved by this Amendment at all? This subsection as amended would say that:
"the Commission shall prepare or cause to be prepared and shall submit to the Minister a scheme.…"
Is there any real difference between preparing a scheme and causing it to be prepared? I should have thought that under the Bill as it stands the Commission could set up a departmental committee, if they liked, and take the scheme to the Minister when it had been prepared and approved. I think the noble Lord,
1318
Lord Wolverton, will find that this Bill provides all he wants without the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think there is the least doubt on this matter, nor do I feel that there is much difference between the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, and myself upon it. The responsibility for submitting a scheme must rest with the Commission, just as in the case of a reorganisation of a business the ultimate responsibility must rest with the board, whoever had done the actual work of preparation. Under the present clause there would be the necessary power to have two, three or four committees, with people working on them from the Railway Executive or some other Executive. Without any extra power being given, there is clearly power to bring in any experts you might want to do this or that job. There is ample provision in the Bill for that. The one thing that I do not like about this Amendment is this—either it does not mean anything, as the noble Viscount has suggested, or else it means that the Commission are able to "pass the buck." I do not want them to be able to "pass the buck"; I want them to remain with the ultimate responsibility and a continuing watch upon it.
LORD WOLVERTON: In view of what the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.32 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2) to page 19, to leave out "shall" and insert "may." The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) at present says the scheme "shall" provide. My Amendment seeks to substitute the word "may" for the word shall. "On the surface it appears to be a very simple Amendment, but it would be wrong if I were to try to persuade your Lordships that it means little or nothing to us on this side of the House. This is a very important Amendment. If your Lordships will examine Clause 14, you will see that there are nine subsections. Seven of these use the word "may" and not "shall." I think the Bill has been properly drawn in this respect, because when the Bill was drafted, the Government did not know what they wanted and the Commission did not know what they wanted. There-

1319
fore, it was important that the hands of the Commission should not be unduly tied. My Amendment would have the effect of bringing the other two subsections, which hang together, into line. It would not deprive the Commission of the right of pronouncing judgment on any proposal in subsection (2) but it would give them liberty to decide what they should do about it.
Before I open out on where this is taking us, I want to draw attention to two other simple facts. Under subsection (3) the Commission are to retain the final power. Whatever organisation is established, whatever committees or authorities are appointed, the final power rests in the hands of the Commission. Then again, the Commission need not delegate the whole of their powers either to the area boards or to any other kind of authority. Indeed, if they once delegate any powers, they can resume them with the consent of Parliament. Perhaps I had better recite subsection (2). Under paragraph (a) it is stated that the scheme shall provide
"for the abolition (if it has not already been abolished) of the Railway Executive;"
I am not sure what these words mean. I should have thought the Executive would not be abolished until some new scheme had been approved by the Government or by Parliament, and some new authorities had been established for the purpose of carrying on. So what these words mean in this subsection I do not know. Paragraph (b) provides that under the scheme area authorities may be appointed. I assume that noble Lords who believe in decentralisation are of the opinion that these area boards will be the new authorities which will largely run the railway system. I have looked through the Bill carefully, and fail yet to understand what the real powers of the area boards are to be. I think I have said sufficient to indicate that we had better go cautiously, and that is why my Amendment seeks to substitute the word "may" for "shall." But if there are any ideas as to what the boards are going to do, it would seem that now is the opportune moment to put them before Parliament.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Would the noble Lord be good enough to repeat that?
LORD SHEPHERD: What I have said is that if there are at present any ideas about the functions of the area boards, then it is time those functions were mentioned in Parliament, so that before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, Parliament, which is the chief authority, may know exactly what it has been doing. I am afraid that there is little we can fix on as describing the duties of the new authorities. In another place, the Minister himself said this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 509, col. 1055):
"The Bill provides for are organisation scheme which shall reserve to the Commission the general control of charges, but a scheme which may also provide for a substantial measure of elasticity in regard to detailed control, and I think it would be very unwise of me to attempt at this stage to tie the hands of the Commission in this field. But interesting possibilities, not without hope in some parts of the United Kingdom, may spring through this new freedom."
I confess that after reading that extract from the Minister's speech I know less than I thought I did before he spoke, because, from what the Minister has said. I cannot see what the area boards are going to do in connection with the job of running the railways.
When the Bill came before your Lordships' House, one period of the Second Reading debate was devoted to the situation which would arise in Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Home, made a statement which went a little further than that made by the Minister. I think it is important that we should realise that in England the area boards will not be given more authority than the Council which is to be established in Scotland, and I cannot understand how Scotsmen can be pleased that there is to be decentralisation of the railway system.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, we still do not know what the powers of the Scottish Council will be.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Viscount will realise that the noble Earl, Lord Home, made not only certain statements but also one or two reservations of importance. First of all, he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, col. 697):
"I think there is a fair degree of agreement that executive authority in Scotland should lie as far as possible with the different branches of nationalised transport,…"

1321
So it is clear that the Scottish Council that is to be established as the area authority for Scotland will not have an executive position. The noble Earl went on to say:
"But because of Scotland's distinctive geographical position it can be argued that there should be some machinery over and above a consultative committee to ensure, first, that the public is served by the most appropriate form of transport.
That seems to mean that the authority of the Council in Scotland will be greater than that of the area boards in England, because in England some of the transport is to be taken away from the hands of the Commission, whereas apparently in Scotland it is to be left there.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Lord where he gets the information from, that things are being taken away in England which are not being taken away in Scotland?
LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to finish my remarks, and then he will see what I am getting at. The noble Earl went on to say,
"that the public is served by the most appropriate form of transport, and secondly, that Scotland's transport needs are constantly understood and appreciated. For this reason the Government have decided to set up a Scottish Transport Council."
In Scotland, therefore, the Transport Council are to concern themselves with all methods of transport. In England and in Wales, the transport system is taken away from the Commission—that is to say, the road transport system is taken away—and since the civil air lines are not connected with it, it means that in England the powers of the area boards, as it seems to me, are less than those of their counterpart in Scotland The noble Earl, Lord Home, said, lower down the column:
"I think it is too soon to define the duties of the Council in great detail. We do not want to tie the Council to a rigid list of functions, which might be restrictive, but here are some of the functions which we think the Council may have: To review together the work of the different transport authorities set up in Scotland; to consider matters of common interest; to formulate joint schemes for the future; to make proposals for the development of joint services in Scotland….It follows from what I have said earlier that this Council will not, and should not, weaken the executive responsibilties of the different transport authorities.…"
1322
It therefore seems clear, from the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Home, who was speaking from a brief, that the area authorities which are to be established are not to be bodies in which there can be a great deal of decentralisation; they are to be bodies which may be able to talk about things, but not actively to exercise control. That is why I move my Amendment: if these things are in doubt, it is better that: the word should be "may," instead of "shall."
In addition to the area boards, as has already been mentioned, there are to be other authorities—that is the only title I can apply to them. Presumably those authorities will be more or less of a national kind. Then there are to be co-ordinating authorities, and presumably those co-ordinating authorities will be connected with all the area authorities surrounding. It is difficult to see how these authorities will get on together, unless a large number of regulations are passed by Parliament in order that their relationship, one with the other, is kept in proper form. I do not yet know—and I do not think noble Lords opposite know—what the responsibilities of these area bodies and other bodies are going to be. But I should like to ask a few questions. Under the new dispensation, who is going to control the main line services? Are the main line services to be run by one authority, or by a co-ordinated authority representing the area authorities through which the lines pass? Which authority will deal with the extensive and growing excursion traffic of the country? Surely, that will not be within the responsibility of the area authorities; it will undoubtedly be national in character, and will, therefore, need national supervision. There is the parcel service, the normal goods traffic and the traffic of minerals, and there are the workshops which turn out the railway engines, and the various coaches that have to be used in the course of service. I cannot see that any one of those important activities will devolve on the area authorities. If they are to be organised at all, they will need to be organised on a national basis, and any scheme or body which is going to make them successful—even if it is not the Commission—will have to be of a national character. That is another reason why we should be careful and not

1323
bear the Commission down by using the word "shall instead of the word "may."
Further, we are told that the object of the Government in this clause is to establish a kind of rivalry between various authorities, in order to improve the railway services. I myself cannot understand a national system of railways, all interlocked, being improved by rivalry between the various sections that control it. I should have thought it much more important that we should secure co-operation between the authorities. Let us assume an extreme case. Suppose that the area authority for the York area wanted to establish a train service to Birmingham. How would they accomplish that? Would they claim running powers over the Midland railways? Or, if the case were reversed, would the Birmingham area authority claim running powers over the area coming within the Yorkshire system? Surely, the answer is "No." Surely, the answer is that, if there is to be such a service, and there are two area authorities who are going to deal with the matter, there must be a co-ordinating body—there must be co-operation and not rivalry.
I would conclude by mentioning one other point. It is sometimes suggested that if we have a kind of competition on our railways, instead of co-operation, it would be an improvement for the railway user. If the services which run on the two coasts of England down to London were practically the same, no inducement would take the Glasgow man by the East Coast to Euston—naturally he would take the West Coast. A Scotsman living in Edinburgh who wanted to come to London would not go round the West Coast merely because it was a longer journey, or for some other inducement, but would come down to London by the East Coast.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No doubt the noble Lord is aware that the shortest journey is through Carlisle, on the West Coast.
LORD SHEPHERD: That may be. But in point of time the Blue Rib and has usually been held on the East Coast. Perhaps the noble Earl is not old enough
1324
to remember the days when there was a rivalry between the railway companies running express trains between London and Scottish places. My recollection is that the Blue Rib and always went to the "Flying Scotsman," because it had the most direct route and it had the easiest gradients. In other words, even if there is that competition between the railways, it will not change the habit of a Scotsman: he will still use the line to which he has become accustomed. Therefore, I urge that, before we agree to a clause of this kind, making it compulsory for the Commission to do these things, we should make sure that we know exactly what we want. Alternatively, we should permit the Commission to submit their Report and then make our decisions upon what that report may be. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 27, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, for a very brief period in my younger days in your Lordships' House, I frequently moved an Amendment of this nature, only in the opposite sense—for "may" read "shall." I invariably received the same reply, which was that the word "may" in a Parliamentary Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament is interpreted to mean "shall."
4.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: We seem to have entered into discussions upon railway administration about which I think my noble friend Lord Ridley and I could have a great deal to say. But, on the general question, I do not think it matters whether it is "may" or "shall" when it comes to the final working out. So far as I can see, the only substantive thing to which the word "shall" applies is to the Railway Executive; it is to make it quite certain that the Railway Executive is abolished. As to all these other clauses and subsections, I do not think it means very much. After all what is going to happen? The Transport Commission will present a scheme to the Minister. I do not think the Minister wants to be bound by all these things. He wants to present what he considers to be a practical scheme, and it is up to the Minister to consider that scheme. We are coming to a very important Amendment in the name

1325
of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and a subsequent Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Bilsland, both of which are particularly applicable to Scotland. Those important Amendments provide that the scheme shall be amendable by this House. That is what we want; but otherwise I think that we might just as well have "may," for all the practical results that are going to come out of it after the scheme is produced.
LORD SALTOUN: I am a little uneasy about the set-up with regard to Scotland, because this island is so much longer than it is broad that any properly organised scheme of transport must work as a whole from north to south. You are doing a trader in Thurso a very great injury if, in addition to the disadvantage he suffers, it is added to at points like Inverness, Perth and so on, all the way down. I realise that one must have a special scheme to co-ordinate internal traffic in Scotland, but I think it would be a great injury to Scotland if we did not have the system working in the main as part of a great whole, extending from north to south.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: As a footnote to the speech of my noble friend who moved this Amendment, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 14. In examining it, I tried to relate it to the intentions of the Government as they were set out in the speech of the Secretary of State, Lord Leathers, on the Second Reading. The noble Lord talked a great deal about decentralisation—that he thought the time had come for the tide of centralisation to ebb, and that the tendency ever since 1921 should now be reversed. He wants to decentralise. But what do we find in this clause? There are the area authorities set up to deal with such of the railway functions of the Commission as are specified; then there is the permissive clause that other authorities may be set up, not for areas, but to undertake functions other than railway functions as delegated to them, and then we have the co-ordinating authorities to co-ordinate the various areas and other authorities. The scheme may also provide for regulating the relations of these authorities with each other, with the Commission, and with other persons, and for giving the Commission financial
1326
control. Then the scheme may entrust to any of the authorities any other functions, if they appear to the Commission or to the Minister to be necessary or expedient. They authorise any such authority to operate outside its own area and in the area of another. Finally, it is not necessary for the Commission to delegate all their railway functions through these authorities; they may apparently keep some.
To my mind it is a positive nightmare of organisation. I cannot see how an organisation such as is sketched out can provide adequate decentralisation. After all, the Railway Executive which exists now is the body which co-ordinates the work of the different regions. If the Government are going to abolish the Railway Executive only in order to set up another co-ordinating authority and possibly several others, I cannot see that the clause contributes to their objects. Indeed, the noble Loaf, Lord Leathers, said that he relies a great deal on the decentralisation scheme to give more power to the man on the spot to take quick decisions. With all that forest of authorities and co-ordinating authorities, how can the man on the spot have any more freedom to act than he has at present under a perfectly clear system of command? I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, will find that the streamlined railway system which he envisaged can come about by these means.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This discussion has spread over a fairly wide area, but the point we are at is really an exceedingly simple one, and is the only one which the noble Lord has asked: that is, whether the word "shall" should be turned into "may." The other circumstances referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the other matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, do not arise on this Amendment; and if the noble Lord wants to discuss Scotland, then the clause on which to do so is Clause 9. Scotland comes under this clause only in that the subsection insists on areas, and subsection (9) says that one of those areas shall be Scotland; otherwise Scotland does not come in at all.
Anybody who has listened to this debate so far will have heard the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, say that the railways are far too centralised, and

1327
other remarks of the same character have been made all the way through. There is no doubt in the minds of most railway men to-day that a great measure of decentralisation is required. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, comes along and says, "Oh, but we must know exactly what we want." Is the noble Lord seriously saying that he should write into the Statute exactly how he wants the railways run? Because, if I may say so with great respect, I think such a policy would be insane. What we have done is to lay down quite broadly certain principles in subsection (2) which shall operate—principles of decentralisation; and, having done that, we are then leaving the Commission free to make such proposals in regard to their organisation as they think fit.
The noble Lord does not think there should be any decentralisation at all. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said that this clause is not clear enough. I agree it is not very clear, but the noble Lord's Amendment would make it less clear, because one thing that is definite is that there is going to be decentralisation. This was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, in his opening speech. This is a fundamental matter. He insists on decentralisation; and we cannot give way on this in any circumstances.
LORD SHEPHERD: I very much regret the attitude taken by the Government towards this very simple Amendment in terms. But I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that "may" and "shall" are the same thing. I know that if there were a law which said that I might do a thing if I liked, and on the other hand a law that I should have to do a thing whether I liked it or not. I should think there was a world of difference between the two.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: There is a world of difference between the personal activities of an individual and the reactions of a Government Department to the wording of an Act of Parliament.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not believe that any Minister faced with these two words would have any doubt as to what his powers really were. He would say at once, "That particular clause says I may
1328
do it if I think fit; it does not say that I shall do it whether I think fit or not. "The Minister, therefore, has a perfect right to decide that the word "may" gives him liberty of thought and action, whereas the word "shall" binds him down. It is on that point that we have raised our Amendment. I have brought in the Scottish aspect, not to discuss Scottish conditions but to show the muddle which this clause is in. I thought there was certainly a muddle in this clause, and that it was essential that we should not compel the Commission to do a thing, but that we should say that it may. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has suggested that noble Lords on the other side of the House believe in decentralisation whereas we do not. That is not accurate. Noble Lords on this side do not believe in overdecentralisation—a very different thing. What I am pointing out is that although this Bill professes to decentralise, the real power is not going to be decentralised at all; and the Council which you are going to establish in Scotland may review, may discuss, may make proposals, but will not be able to interfere with the executive authority of the services which come under the Act.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure the noble Lord would not make the elementary mistake of confusing the Scottish Council with the Regional Board.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am only pointing out that in subsection (9), there is a proviso that for the purposes of paragraph (b) in subsection (2) the Scottish Council shall be taken as the area authority. So in that sense the Scottish Council is to be the area authority for Scotland. I am saying that if that is an example of what these area authorities are going to be like, then decentralisation as understood on the Benches opposite is not going to work.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think the noble Lord said that the Scottish Council was the same as the Railway Authority.
LORD SHEPHERD: I never said that. I have been trying to make the matter distinct in quoting the noble Earl's speech to the effect that there is a distinction between the Scottish Council and the executive authorities of the transport world. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (2), to omit paragraph (a) The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and the names of my noble friends on the Marshalled List. Noble Lords will see that this deals with a very narrow but specific point—the abolition of the Railway Executive. I submit, first, that the subsection is quite unnecessary, and secondly, that it is needlessly hurtful to men who have carried out certain duties in the public interest. As to its being unnecessary, may I refer your Lordships to Clause 4, subsection (1) of the 1947 Act which says:
"The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest, and the Commission shall give elect to any such directions."
Now, that is a very wide enabling section, and I suggest gives the Minister all the powers he requires for working out in conjunction with the Transport Commission any general scheme of reorganisation.
I ask your Lordships to consider for one moment how the present position has arisen. That takes us back to the first Report of the Transport Commission. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to read some of this Report because it is of vital importance in order to make the point which I am trying to submit to your Lordships. Paragraph 3 says this:
"At their first meeting the Commission considered what form of organisation they could most suitably adopt for the conduct of their internal business and for the devolution of authority to the various Executives which would be appointed to assist them is the discharge of their duties. The Commission proceeded upon the view that they are a policy-making and directing body which should act collectively and should not discharge executive functions, or be charged as individuals with functional responsibilities."—
and so on. Further on, on page 6, paragraph 11 of the 1948 Report states:
"An Executive are thus free o maintain their contact with the public and their workers and carry on all day-to-day business without the Commission being brought in; but as between the Commission and Executive directions may be given by the former by which the exercise of their delegated powers by the Executives may be regulated."
1330
It is quite clear, then, from the Report of the Transport Commission in their earliest days, that full and complete delegated powers were given to the Railway Executive—I am considering only the Railway Executive at the present moment. Further, it is clear that the British Transport Commission, along with the Railway Executive—and ultimately, of course, the Minister of Transport—have responsibility for the form of organisation which has been evolved—a form of organisation which, broadly speaking, is the centralised pattern of the old London, Midland and Scottish Railway. At the present stage and in the consideration of this Amendment I would suggest that the question of whether or not this organisation is the correct form of organisation really does not arise. Nor does the question of whether or not there should be a decentralised form of administration similar to that which the old London and North Eastern Railway had. I want to make it perfectly clear that at the moment we are not concerned at all with that issue.
Now may we recall the names of those who were appointed to serve on the Railway Executive Committee in the first instance: Sir Eustace Missenden, formerly general manager of the Southern Railway; Mr. W. P. Allen, well-known in trade union circles as the one-time Secretary of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen; Mr. Barrington-Ward, formerly divisional general manager, Southern Area, L.N.E.R.; Mr. David Blee, formerly chief goods manager, G.W.R.; Mr. R. A. Riddles, formerly Vice-President of the Executive, L.M.S.; and Mr. J. C. L. Train, formerly chief engineer of the LN.E.R. I will not bring in Sit William Slim or the two part-time members. There have been changes since the early appointment of the Executive. Mr. John Elliott has replaced Sir Eustace Missenden as Chairman of the Railway Executive. There are other changes which have been made but which I need not particularise.
The point I wish to make, however, is this, and I am sure that it cannot be disputed by noble Lords opposite. The names in 1948 and the names to-day are the names of first-rate railway officers, men of outstanding administrative ability, men who have devoted the whole of their working lives to the railway

1331
service and, above all, men honoured and respected in the railway service. In view of the expressed desire of the Deputy Leader of the House that the new arrangements, when they come into operation, to receive the maximum of good will, energy and enthusiasm on the part of the staff, the point I have made that those railway men on the Railway Executive are honoured and respected men in the railway service is a most important one. They were given a job to do. Again, I am not saying whether they have done it well or done it badly—that is not the point at issue. Personally, I think they have done a very good job, but that does not arise.
Her Majesty's Government have decided that it would be better to have another type of organisation than that obtaining on the railways at the present time. Again, I am not quarrelling with that decision. The Government are perfectly entitled to make that decision and to come to this House and the other place in order to get legislative sanction or approval for it. But what treatment is meted out in this Bill to those men of first-rate railway business experience and ability? The Bill says that their posts, their jobs, their responsibilities are to be abolished, if they have not previously been abolished, when the scheme comes before the House for consideration. I am not overstraining it when I say that they are publicly sacked by a clause in an Act of Parliament. The humblest junior clerk in the railway service would have been treated with greater consideration, would not have been subjected to—I was almost going to say—the public humiliation to which these men, who have endeavoured to serve the public in the national interest, have been subjected.
LORD TEYNHAM: May I interrupt for a moment? I suppose the noble Lord is aware that, apart from anything that the Government may think, the Transport Commission themselves are anxious to get rid of the Railway Executive.
LORD BURDEN: That, I understand, has been stated by the Minister of Transport in another place, but, curiously enough, the same secrecy is maintained in regard to the documents stating that as the secrecy maintained regarding another document which my noble friend
1332
Lord Lucas wished to have produced. I have never seen the thing in full. Has the noble Lord, Lord Teynham? Having been referred to, why is the document not printed in full and made available for members of this House?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I hesitate to interrupt, but I would point out to the noble Lord that, so far as I understand it, the Railway Executive themselves are not greatly perturbed at their possible demise.
LORD BURDEN: They may not be. They may be happily fixed up in another direction; I do not know. I am not in the inner councils and I have not consulted the Railway Executive Committee in regard to the speech I am making—far be it from me to seek to aspire to such high circles! I am approaching this matter only from the point of view of the feelings of one who has served the railways towards the men who have been in command in the railway service. I am expressing the feelings of the rank and file of railway servants, salaried and otherwise, in regard to what is virtually the dismissal of those to whom they have looked up as their chiefs. Is there anything wrong in a feeling of loyalty amongst the staff to those who have been leading the industry? I have been trying, no doubt imperfectly, to give expression to that feeling of loyalty amongst the members of the staff.
Let me go on to say this. I should like the Government to accept this Amendment, for this reason: that then, in consultation with the British Transport Commission, they can bring forward a new type of organisation which may or may not (I am not saying that it should) include a railway executive. But is there anything really far-reaching or wrong in suggesting that a scheme of railway organisation, involving far-reaching changes in the railway service, should first of all be considered by railway men and, as one railway man to another, at the highest level? If the new scheme comes forward without a railway executive, all well and good. But there is nothing in any Act of Parliament which provides that the leaders, the men in whom those in the railway service have placed their trust over a number of years, are to be given their part in the new set-

1333
up. It is because I want to put the point that this clause is straining the loyalty of the staff of British Railways, that I ask Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment which I now move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 28, leave out lines 28 and 29.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps I might wind up this very interesting discussion on behalf of the Opposition. I think my noble friends Lord Shepherd and Lord Burden, have made a case comprising two halves which together make a very good whole. The reason for putting down this Amendment and the last was to express our dissatisfaction with Clause 14 as it now stands. First, we say that it is not necessary to have this Bill in order to achieve the Government's purpose as outlined by Clause 14. It is quite possible under the existing Act of 1947 for the Minister, if he so desires, to say to the British Transport Commission, "Will you please submit to me a scheme for the reorganisation of the railways, and take into consideration all the factors set out in Clause 14." Proof of what I say is given by the fact that, without this Bill, the British Transport Commission have already submitted a scheme to the Minister for the reorganisation of the railways—a scheme which, like many others, is wrapped in mystery and will, I expect, be revealed at some future date, suitably amended by the Minister. I make no complaint about that, because I think I am right in saying that we already have an assurance from the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of your Lordships' House that, before any scheme is finally put into the Statute, it will be submitted to your Lordships' House for discussion. So Clause 14 is not needed; this straitjacket, saying in one part that they "may" do this and in another that they "shall" do that, is not needed. I am inclined to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, about this matter: my experience of working in a Government Department is that the Minister's principal advisers can make black white and white black as easily as they can make "shall" "may" and "may" "shall."
One does not need this Bill in order to abolish the Railway Executive. Under the powers vested in him by the 1947
1334
Act the Minister can do away with the Railway Executive. He could have done away with it months ago if he had so desired. The appropriate Minister in the late Government abolished the Road Passenger Executive quite easily. Why does not the Minister carry out this operation in that way? He can do so. He does not need the power in this Bill. We say that it is unnecessary. We say that we would rather the Commission drew up their own scheme. Probably the Commission are as anxious as anyone else to reorganise. Probably that has always been the case. Not for one moment would I claim that all the wisdom in transport management was included in the 1947 Act. Experience has taught us a great many things. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in the interesting speech which he made on Second Reading, said that very likely the Commission had interfered too much with detailed running; very likely the Railway Executive had interfered too much with policy. It may have been our fault in not making their duties more precise. Bat even if the Railway Executive is abolished, it will not mean marching all the members of the Railway Executive on to the street and telling them, "You must now find a job somewhere else." They are the only people who know thus mechanics of running the railways. The Railway Executive will have to be re-born in the form of an operational management committee or something like that. But we do not know anything about that; we have not been told anything about that. I fully trust that one day the Government will tell us.
May I echo Lord Shepherd's question—namely, what are all these authorities? The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in his interesting speech, said that unnamed powers will be delegated to these authorities. He went on to say (OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 180, Cal. 651):
"I think it would be interesting to know the extent to which Her Majesty's Government think delegation can go, because subsection (3) (a) provides for setting up other authorities (I hope noble Lords wilt note the plural)…"
The noble Earl has stressed the plural all the way through. We are not against decentralisation, but no Government spokesman has ever told us what is meant by it. Without dotting the i's and crossing the t's, and telling the Transport

1335
Commission what they have to do, would it not be as well to have a simple direction from the Minister, go through the mechanics of Clause 15, and then come to this House with the scheme? We shall then know what we are talking about. We shall ask the Committee to express their opinion on this particular Amendment in the Lobby, thereby registering our dislike of all the provisions in Clause 14.
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is hardly worth while to reply at length to the matters which have been put forward by those who moved this Amendment, though I might at least commend them on their expedition. I should add, with respect to Lord Burden, that I know he meant to express appreciation of the Railway Executive, but I think it a pity he used some of the words he did. We all have the highest regard for those who are running the railways. There is not one word that I have said about them which is not in terms of praise. But this Executive was set up by Parliament, and therefore is it not equally dignified that it should be abolished by Parliament?
LORD BURDEN: It was set up by the 1947 Act.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I say that having been set up by Parliament it should be abolished by Parliament. I would emphasise that there are real objections to the Executive system. The appointments to the Executive are made by the Government and not by the Commission, yet none the less the Executive is responsible to the Commission. We thought it wrong then, and we think it is wrong now. Another thing which we think wrong is the three-tier system. We have no doubt that the Commission will, in fact, abolish it. But it may well be that the Executive stage was necessary for one period, in order possibly to draw together the standardisation of the best practice. I am not saying that it has not served a useful purpose.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I have been listening to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to see whether he had some real reason for abolishing the Railway Executive
1336
under this Bill. I cannot find it in the Bill itself. He has referred to the three-tier system. But whatever area of organisation you have, it is necessary to have a co-ordinating authority at the top. Such an authority is essential. So far as I can see, you may have some kind of co-ordinating authority which it may be left to the Transport Commission to work out before the Railway Executive is abolished. What is that co-ordinating authority to be?
LORD WINSTER: I have listened with the greatest care to what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, for I have been wondering what was the crime of the Railway Commission that they were to be abolished in this manner. I do not think the noble Earl has made out a really good case for abolition, but at least I am glad to learn that this decision is not due to any shortcomings in the performance of the Railway Executive's task. He has said that the Government have the highest regard for the manner in which the Railway Executive have carried out their duties. If that is the case, I should have thought that two curt lines in the Bill abolishing them was rather a poor reward for their services.
I want to refer to a remark by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I believe he has now left the Chamber, but I hope he will not object if I raise this point. I understood him to say that a letter issued by the Commission with regard to the Railway Executive had not been published, and, as I gathered, he added that the Railway Executive might possibly be very glad that that had not been published. I am bound to say that that is rather a slur by innuendo upon the Railway Executive. The only inference I could draw was that the letter from the Commission had been very adverse to the Railway Executive—so adverse that it was a lucky thing for the Railway Executive that it had not been published. That is a slur by innuendo and I regret very much to have heard it. But while I understand that the reason now for abolishing the Railway Executive is an administrative reason, and not due to any defect in its work, I am bound to say that the noble Earl did not really make out a case for the administrative change; and I shall support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: May I be allowed one brief observation following upon what Lord Elibank has said? It relates to the regional system and the effect of decentralisation. I recall the system on the old London and North Eastern Railway. Instead of what really was three areas, we now have it on a larger scale of four or five areas with a Transport Commission and a Co-ordinating Committee. The point of this clause seems to be to get rid of the third authority of the three.
5.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (2) (a) after "Executive" to insert:
"and of the Hotels and Docks and Inland Waterways Executives."
The noble Viscount said: This clause, as we have already heard, provides for the abolition of the Railway Executive. There are two other Executives which were set up under the 1947 Act and which, it seems to me, should be abolished at the same time: I refer to the Hotels
I cannot believe in the suggestion which has been made that because one of these authorities is abolished, it is the intention of the Government under the Bill that the services of those on that authority shall be lost to the railways.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Burden, L, [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Calverley, L

Lucas of Chilworth, L

Elibank, V.

Chorley, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Stansgate, V.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Hare. L. (E. Listowel.)

Silkin, L.

Amwell, L.

Inman, L

Uvedale of North End, L.

Archibald, L.

Kenswood, L.

Winster, L.

Bingham, L (E. Lucan.)

Kershaw, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Furness, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Goschen, V.

Fairlie, (E. Glasgow.)

Cholmondeley, M.

Monsell, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Exeter, M.

Ridley, V.

Freyberg, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Swinton, V.

Gifford, L.

Willingdon, M.

Trenchard, V.

Hampton, L.

Waverley, V.

Hawke, L

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Llewellir, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Lloyd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Ashburton, L.

Milne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Baden-Powell, L

Palmer, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Bilsland, L.

Remnant, L.

Grey, E.

Blackford, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brand, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Munster, E

Carrington, L.

Savile, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Cherwell, L.

Teviot, L.

Rothes, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Teynham, L.

Selborne, E.

Dormer, L.

Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

Selkirk, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Waleran, L

Falmouth, V.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Executive and the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. The Hotels Executive, in my opinion, is a wholly unnecessary body. It is quite unnecessary to have dining cars and refreshment rooms run by entirely different staffs from the rest of the railways. If you complain about the state of a refreshment room to a station-master he says, "It has nothing to do with me or the railways. The responsibility rests with the Hotels Executive." In my view if ever there was a redundant body it is the Hotels Executive.
With regard to the other body set up under this Act, the Docks and Inland

1339
Waterways Executive, your Lordships will remember that the original intention was that there should be a grandiose body which should run all the docks in the country—that is to say not only railway docks, but the docks which were controlled by the big public authorities at ports like London and Liverpool and so on. Of course, that scheme fell through. The only things left for the Executive to control were the railway docks and also the canals. Surely, at this time, when we are considering modifying this Act, we should also abolish the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. These railway docks, before the war, were run by the railways quite efficiently. They did not require any extra staff. The same engineering departments which looked after the railways looked after the railway docks and harbours. At the present moment, I understand that in the matter of trucks which are shunted into the premises of docks and harbours there has to be a certain amount of clerical work which is quite redundant, and would not be necessary if these docks and harbours were looked upon as part of the one organisation.
Therefore I ask the Government whether they will consider including in this clause not only the abolition of the Railway Executive, but the abolition of the other two Executives, which seem to me to be redundant. There is another executive which deals with the canals, but it is a very small body. Your Lordships will understand just how small and insignificant this executive is when I say that the total tonnage carried by the canals under this executive is about 12 million tons, compared with 300 million tons by the railways. Surely we could telescope the duties of this executive with those of another department and do away with a great deal of extra labour and costs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 29, after ("Executive") insert ("and of the Hotels and Docks and Inland Waterways Executives").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
LORD BURDEN: First of all, may I say a word on the composition of the Hotels Executive? In the earlier stages the work of developing and co-ordinating the duties imposed on the Hotels Executive was carried out by my noble friend
1340
Lord Inman. To-day the Chairman is Sir Harry Methven, who is connected with the catering and hotel trade, and who, I believe, is giving his services without pecuniary reward in order to help develop this service. On the Executive there is Mr. F. G. Hole, who was chief hotels superintendent of the L.M.S. As an L.M.S. man, I know that he would never have risen to that position in the company if he had not been a man of outstanding ability. Thirdly, there is Mrs. Gaskin. I have some knowledge of her work through my connection with Sheffield. She built up from scratch in Sheffield an extremely successful business. Then, as part-time member, there is Mr. Ernest Wimble, who in the 'twenties started the Workers' Travel Association, which now is an organisation of great strength. Mr. Wimble has a vast experience of catering and hotel problems. Surely it must be agreed that catering in refreshment and dining rooms, together with the satisfactory running of hotels, is a highly technical and specialised industry, and that the proper co-ordination and running of railway services, goods and passenger, and catering activities are poles apart. I think it would be just as reasonable to argue that the Hotels Executive should run the railways as to argue the other way round. Surely it is only common sense to recognise that these are two separate businesses, which require quite different techniques. In my view, it would be simply disastrous if we reverted to the pre-war pattern of organisation.
I am confident that in a short space of time we shall see the fruits of the skill and knowledge of the Hotels Executive in the business for which they are responsible. Twelve hotels have already been disposed of—the details are given in the Annual Report of the Transport Commission—and my information is that there are now only one or two which are likely not to be remunerative in the near future. I believe it would not be hazarding too risky a guess to say that the hotels which are retained will soon be making a good return to the net revenue of the Commission.
I should like to say a further word in regard to dining cars. I think there is evidence that the public demand is changing, and the Hotels Executive are shaping their policy accordingly. They have a hundred or more buffet cars to cope with

1341
the increasing public demand for later meals on the trains. Soon, the stock joke of alleged comedians about the antiquity of the railway sandwich will become a thing of the past. Anyone who cares to look at the refreshment rooms at some of our larger termini must agree, unless there is a jaundiced, biased, prejudiced vision, that great changes to the good have been effected—what might in fairness be described as a revolutionary improvement. Bearing in mind the capital restrictions, the good work will be continued. If the organisation which is now working so well is broken up, I submit that it would be a most retrograde step—indeed, nothing short of a disaster. Generally speaking, station refreshment rooms, and for that matter, some hotels, were not the most creditable of the pre-war performances of the railway companies.
May I add a word about the attacks, or rather reflections, upon the efficiency of the present set-up? I would not have spoken this evening on this Amendment but for what was said in the course of the Second Reading debate. These reflections are having a most unsettling effect on the staff. As I have already suggested to your Lordships, the excellent work started by my noble friend Lord Inman and continued by the present Hotels Executive is likely to bring satisfactory returns. The staff at the Executive's headquarters number 268, and if the Executive is abolished someone will have to do the work.
With regard to the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, I have only one word to say in relation to the suggested break-up there, and that is to answer in the words of the present Minister of Transport. He said, in another place:
"I have been asked also about the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. I want to join in the tribute paid both to the chairman and the deputy chairman of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. I should like, if I may, formally for the record, to say that there is no intention to hand to the reorganised railways the docks now administered by the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. Special consideration may arise in particular cases, but the general intention is that they should be administered separately, though, of course, under the Transport Executive."
It may be taken as a sign of grace that for once I quote the Minister of Transport in support of my case. I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment.
6.2 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: As my name is connected with this Amendment, I should like to say a few words. I will start with the Docks and Inland Waterways. As I understood it, when the Act of 1947 went through, it was the intention to bring the whole of the docks in the country under this Executive—the Port of London, Mersey Docks, Glasgow and Clyde Navigation, and so on. That has not been done, and only the railway docks have come under this organisation. I was credibly informed the other day that one of the most paying parts of the Southern Railway was Southampton Docks. Those docks in the early days were created by the old South Western Railway. The graving dock, which I had the pleasure of seeing constructed between the two wars, was laid by the Southern Railway, and their ingenuity, money and staff went into its erection. If we are to try to make these railway regions pay again, I cannot see that it is necessary to run separate executives. The railways did this work efficiently before, and I am sure they could do it efficiently again. In many cases they created these docks, and they are part and parcel of the railway organisation.
With regard to the question of hotels and restaurant cars, between the two wars they were most efficiently run. Mr. Arthur Towle was a most eminent controller, and under him was Mr. Hole of the L.M.S.; they ran their hotels and restaurant cars extremely well—if I may say so, without casting too much reflection, a great deal better than they are run to-day. The other day I travelled on a train to Liverpool. It was a very clean train, but in the restaurant car they came round and said: "Will you have soup or fish, meat or chicken, or cheese or sweet?"—there was no bill of fare. I think that is general with all the refreshment cars now. We are trying to set Britain up as a worthwhile country to visit, and we have many interesting things to show. But one thing the foreigner wants to know when he arrives on these shores is what he is going to eat—what sort of soup, what son of fish, what sort of meat, and so on, he, is going to get. Six years after the war, I feel that there might be an improvement there. I feel that if these services were handed back

1343
to the railways, who ran them most efficiently in the past, we should get a better service.
There is another important aspect. In the past, the hotels were run as part of the railway service, and you could often book a ticket for a week-end, with hotel accommodation thrown in, at a fixed price. If we are to do away with the Railway Executive, I should very much like to see these two Executives abolished as well, their jobs given back to the Commission and delegated to the railway authorities. I feel strongly about the railways. My family have been connected with them for many years and I, like the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and others, want to see them prosperous once again and doing their job. They are by far the most important part of the financial side of this Bill, representing a capital expenditure of something like £800 million, although the road is important and represents about £100 million. I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment, which I regard as an important one.
LORD INMAN: My name has been mentioned, and I think I ought perhaps to say that for the first three years I was Chairman of the Hotels Executive. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, desires to be fair in his comments, but he seems to have forgotten the fact that there has been a war since the time he talked of. In pre-war days good quality food was available in quantity. Let me give one concrete illustration. In pre-war days the good old roast beef of England could be obtained in any quantity. Today, owing to rationing, all that is available is two-thirds of one pennyworth of meat for each person served with a meal. What can you do with two-thirds of one pennyworth of meat? The same is true of the other items of diet—I do not want to weary your Lordships with the details, although I could give them. We must remember that in our own homes and in the hotels we cannot to-day have the food we had in pre-war days. The railways have suffered in the same way as other catering establishments.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, suggested that the Hotels Executive was redundant. With all respect, I should like to ask one or two questions. In spite of
1344
the fact, as my noble friend Lord Burden has said, that some twelve hotels have been sold—and there are good and sufficient reasons why they were sold—there are still forty-five hotels left. Any man who has been associated with hotel work will tell you that the running of hotels is an experienced job. I may be told that they were run by the old railway companies. I agree that since 1947 great schemes have been carried out, schemes which have, in the opinion of many people, enormously improved the services rendered, and also greatly reduced the cost. For example, there are laundries established for the hotels, not of one region, but of various parts of the country; there are bottling cellars; there are workshops and various other phases of life which cater not for two or three hotels but for all the hotels. I do suggest that if the Hotels Executive is to be abolished there will have to be set up some kind of body of experienced caterers and hoteliers to deal with these vast undertakings coming under the control of the Transport Commission.
LORD GIFFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Inman, has told us about these laundries and other ancillaries. May that not be part of the reason why the costs have gone up? I always understood that in many cases it was much better to do work of that kind by contract, than to go into a large business knowing little about it. That is the general experience throughout business. With regard to improvements, everybody has said bow greatly improved the hotels have been. I suggest that the L.M.S. hotels were well run in the old days, and were known for their good food and everything else.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: So were the L.N.E.R.
LORD GIFFORD: Of course, there have been improvements. There have been improvements in refreshment rooms, but those of us who know Victoria Station know well that there has not been the slightest alteration in the refreshment rooms there; even now the only sandwich obtainable is one made of spam. I think forty-five hotels are far too big a unit. It is bigger than any hotel unit in the

1345
world. The experience of managements like the Savoy is that the running of hotels is a highly personal thing. Unless the Executives can visit very frequently those hotels in their own chain, then they fail. I would suggest that forty-five hotels are far too big a unit. It would be much better to break them up into smaller units, under their particular regions, which could be personally supervised much better by their executives.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There has been a rather interesting division of opinion on this subject, and I do not think there is any harm in that. I am going to say something which is in the opposite direction to what I said in the last Amendment. In regard to the railways, we think that reorganisation is something to be carried out at once, and we think it should not be held up in any way. So far as the other Executives are concerned, we think that it would be wrong to specify any change at all for the time being. Frankly, we are not enamoured of the statutory Executives appointed by a Minister. We have powers, if necessary, to abolish all Executives.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: And also under the other Act.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Not all. We take powers under this to abolish all Executives. May I reply to a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Burden? There are certain things we fear in regard to the docks. One is that the docks should not be placed under a regional railway organisation. We also hold the same view in regard to the canals and inland waterways. Equally, they will not be put under the railway regional organisation. The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, in moving this Amendment, mentioned that the canals were not carrying a very great deal of traffic. But I understand that it is the policy of those in charge—the Railway Executive—to maintain and develop those parts of the canals which showed commercial possibilities. That was the policy which they were pursuing. The Docks and Inland Waterways Executive have come in for some criticism, in view of these schemes which have not been very popular in various parts of the country. Let us face it frankly. So far as running their inland waterways and their docks is concerned,
1346
they have done a very good job. I do not think there are two opinions on that subject, and we should pay full regard to the nature of their duties.
I should like to say one word about the Hotels Executive, very much on the same lines as what I have already said. In both cases we are leaving it to the Commission to say what sort of relationship should exist. But we have a clear idea—as emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Inman—that catering and hotels must be run by hoteliers, and not by railway men. I think that is fundamental, whatever the control may be, one way or the other. If there is one subject in the world of which people will always complain it is the way they are fed. Anybody on the Kitchen Committee of this House is fully aware of this fact. I happened to be forced down in an aeroplane in Manchester, and I entered the Midland Hotel at one o'clock in the morning. One o'clock is a severe testing time for any hotel, and I will say that the night staff could not have taken more trouble about looking after me—they had no idea who I was—whoever it had been, or at any time of the day. I pay my full respects to the right staff.
I would agree, on the whole, with the noble Lord, Lord Inman, that progress is being made in the catering services and hotels under the Hotels Executive. Al the moment we do not intend in any way to disturb that, but will await whatever advice, guidance or request may be made from the Commission in regard to the relationship which exists between it and these two Executives.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I am sorry indeed that the noble Earl does not think the Hotel Executive is a redundant body. Surely before the war the hotels, the refreshment rooms and the dining cars were all run by the railways and they were all run extremely well. With regard to the question of the Docks Executive, there also, it seems to me, is a case of redundancy. The railways were running these docks before the war and they did not have a special staff to do it. They had the same engineers and when wagons and carriages went into the docks they did not have to pass under different administration. Now all that has changed. What I have been advocating is an attempt to

1347
reduce some of the cost of running these services by cutting out unnecessary duplication.
LORD INMAN: The noble Viscount talks about reducing the costs. I should like to point out that the cost of running the Hotels Executive is less than the cost of running the catering service on the old railway companies.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I know nothing whatever about the figures, but there is redundancy by having a special body dealing with hotels—the noble Lord cannot get away from it. It was done by the railways before. I do not propose to go to Division on this Amendment and I ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNTSWINTON: Before the noble Viscount moves to the next Amendment, may I say that I think it would be convenient if we took Amendments 60 and 61 together? They are very similar, and I suggest we might debate the whole issue on the two combined.
6.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) to insert as a new paragraph:
"(d) for the ascertainment as far as is reasonably practical of the receipts and expenditure of each area and for the results to be included in the annual accounts of the Commission."
The noble Viscount said: The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, suggests that we should take these two Amendments together. They are similar in some respects, but in other respects there is quite a big difference. The object of this Amendment is to add a subsection to the effect that the railways should ascertain as far as is reasonably practicable the receipts and expenditure of each area. If the railways are to be divided up into areas, it seems to me essential that the different bodies—the management and the board, or whoever they may be—should know the result of their operations, and the only way they can do that is by knowing what are the receipts as well as the expenditure of their area. The figures of receipts are not so easy to get as they are in the
1348
electricity or gas undertakings. There, as your Lordships realise, the different gas and electricity boards in the areas are responsible for presenting a statement to Parliament, giving receipts and expenditure. What I a masking for is that the Railway Boards, when they are set up, should also be responsible for the same duty.
It is difficult to collect railway receipts. In the old days the railways had the clearing house organisation which enabled them to know how much of any particular service went to each individual unit. It is said that that service was very expensive. The other day I was looking up the figures, and it appears that just before the war there were something like 500,000 railway men, and of that number 2,000 were occupied in railway clearing activities. That is not a very large percentage of the whole. But I am not asking for a very detailed statement of receipts, because during the war, as your Lordships realise, a great reduction had to be made in manpower which was employed in unnecessary services, and one thing which was cut down was the railway clearing house. I am only asking that this matter should be very carefully considered, so that each area of the railways should, if possible, know what are their receipts; otherwise I do not see how the managements will be able to know how the railways stand.
There is another Amendment to be moved like this one. I am afraid I do not agree with what has been said concerning operating statistics and costs. There are numerous operating statistics given out by the Executive, but as the system exists at present the different regions do not know what their receipts are. The system is that when you send something by rail, the amount of the charge is credited to each particular area in which the goods are received. Those goods may be transmitted over several other areas, but those areas get no credit for them. So of course it is quite impossible for any area manager to know where he stands. I hope that the noble Lord, when he comes to consider the question as to how areas are to be established, and more detailed matters in connection with the administration, will see that a big attempt is made to enable the

1349
receipts accruing to the different areas to be credited to them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 36, after subsection (c) insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
LORD WOLVERTON: As my name is coupled with this Amendment, I rise to support my noble friend, Lord Falmouth. I think this is one of the most important Amendments we have had or these railway clauses. If we are going to decentralise our railways, it is very important that the decentralised regions should know approximately how they stand with regard to their income and expenditure. We have not been told very much, but as one visualises the organisation it will probably not be run by one man, but rather by a committee or a board. If we are going to get the best people possible for these bodies, we must give the new boards or committees a good deal of delegated responsibility. Personally, I visualise that as with the Electricity Board and the Gas Board there will probably be a number of capital schemes put up to the Commission, who will study these capital programmes very carefully and say "Yes" or "No"; and then, if the Commission's assent has been given to the scheme, the necessary working capital will be provided.
It is vital that these regions should know how they stand—whether they are making or losing money on these projects. Unless some form of regional accounts is kept, I cannot see how that is to be done. It may mean setting up some form of modified clearing house so that there may be, if necessary, some form of pooling accounts, some central accounting system whereby they each get a share of the receipts according to the size of the region. Unless something of the kind is done, I cannot see how we can proceed with the decentralisation of the railways which is necessary. I heartily support the Amendment moved by my noble friend.
LORD GIFFORD: Although I was able heartily to support my noble friends in their first Amendment, I cannot agree with them on this one. I think the cost of setting up again even a modified form of railway clearance would be most excessive. Moreover, it would involve a tremendous amount of work of classification which had to be carried on in the old days by the railway agents; and this
1350
would inevitably lead to a great many extra accountants having to be employed. If there is some arbitrary way of getting the results which the noble Lords want, I am in favour of it; but I am not in favour of setting up any large and expensive clearing system once again.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, are very sound. There is a further point. This Bill does a great many things, but it does not denationalise the railways. In the old days, when there were, as the noble Lord has said, bur main-line railways, the railway clearing house or something of that nature was essential because the boards of those companies had to go before annual general meetings and justify their existence or defend themselves against criticism. There is no need now for individual areas to do that, and therefore no need for the expenditure that would be necessary to carry this through. Moreover, I do not see exactly what help it is going to be to the efficiency of the railway companies. I suggest to the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, that if this organisation were set up now, the Southern Region would come out top of the class., followed fairly closely by the Great Western; the London and Midland area would be trailing a little behind; the London and North Eastern would probably be hovering between black and red; and Scotland would be permanently in the red. I do not think it is going to encourage the various areas to know exactly where they are going to be in the list—especially those which inevitably, by reason of their geographical situation and other factors, are going to be near the bottom of the list. I hope, in the circumstances, that Lord Falmouth will not press his Amendment.
6.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have some sympathy with the ideas behind these Amendments, because we all want, when we get decentralisation, to have some sort of yardstick by which we can measure effort, stimulate the successful ones and also get some standard of comparison. But I must say, echoing what has been said by the last two speakers, that so far as costs go there are enormous practical difficulties. Freight trains, for instance, may pass through any number of regions; freight rates may be fired at one end or

1351
the other or intermediately. How are you going to apportion between regions the use of rolling stock or of repair facilities? You may, for instance, take on coal in one place or another, and you may have additional wagons hitched on half-way through the journey. How are you to allocate overheads—track, stations, signalling, et cetera? Before the war separate accounts had to be kept because there were four separate railways. We are not denationalising railways but even when those separate accounts had to be kept the financial results of individual companies were never regarded as a basis for charges. I do not think they were ever considered as a true index of comparative efficiency as between one railway and another. Those factors are brought sharply home when we remember that the financial results of the railways were struck only after extensive pooling arrangements.
Take one example—the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, will correct me if I am wrong. All parcel receipts up and down the country were completely pooled as well as the great proportion of passenger and freight receipts. It is true that some of that pooling was to avoid wasteful competition, but, in the main, it arose out of the fact that a great part of the traffic receipts was identifiable in reality only with the total network and not with the individual items which composed it. Tonnages and the range of haul are known. Those, no doubt, can be recorded and costed, to some extent, but that is not everything, because they are not always the main constituents of the costs. There are many more constituents: there are terminal charges, handling charges, marshalling operations, which vary, and a number of other factors as well. In fact, the network became so highly developed that you would never have subdivided, or attempted to subdivide, these pooled receipts unless you had had separate ownership or separate financial interests. As has been said, that was accomplished only by the maintenance of a clearing house.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, said: "Let us get back something like the clearing house." It was a very costly business and I am advised that at present-day costs—if you like, even more economically run in regard to staff, though I doubt whether it would be—it
1352
might easily cost £1 million a year to set it up and run it. Let us see what would happen. Every single ticket and consignment note with freight—and there would be millions and millions of them—would have to be checked through and allocated as appropriate, and even then the figures very likely would not be a proper reflection of the regions' efficiency. You may say that a manager cannot manage unless he knows not only his expenditures but whether his earnings cover his expenditures. Broadly, that is true, but it would not be a fair test, in the case of the regions, as has been pointed out. The rich regions would be subsidising the poor regions, as has always been fundamental in railway operations. If you are a bad region—I mean "bad" in the sense of "expensive to run"—you must not be unduly despondent because you are "in the red." Equally, the local management of a lucrative region ought not to be complacent because it sees that it has an excess, and probably a fairly good excess, of receipts over expenditures.
Let us take Scotland. As has been said, it really would not stimulate Scotland at all to be given an elaborate costing system which proved that it was making a heavy loss. It might be running more efficiently under its local management with local knowledge, and giving a better service to its people, than an undertaking in a densely populated area with much valuable freight and passenger traffic. Then there are things like central wagon pooling. They produce enormous economies. You certainly cannot get away from that. Even now, the Commission has, I believe, never found it practicable in its published accounts to apportion the central charges among its various activities, even among railways, docks, ships, road haulage, road passenger services and hotels. It would be much more difficult to try to apportion it by regions. I appreciate Lord Falmouth's experience with his Electricity Board, but there he has an incomparably easier proposition. He has his problems, and no doubt they are considerable, but, after all, it is a self-contained entity. He gets his electricity and he sells it in his own region, and he has not a great deal that goes outside.
When we come to statistics, as apart from costs, there is a great deal more to

1353
be said for it. The railways produce very useful regional statistics. It is quite possible that something more in the way of providing statistics of operations by areas could be done. There is power under Section 94 of the Act of 1947, to enable the Minister to direct the form of accounts and statistics. Very likely—in fact, I am fairly sure—theCommission would want to do that, and every region would want to have it so far as it can be done in the decentralisation scheme. I am certainly ready to look at this matter and see how far the figures could be broken down by areas to meet the points made. The existing section may be adequate—it probably is. It may be said that that is a permissive power. I am quite ready to see whether some form of words can be devised. For reasons which have been given by others as well as by myself, I cannot pretend that it is likely to come very close to what the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, indicated, because we cannot face the vast cost of a clearing house without getting even the old results from it. But when it conies to statistics, and maybe certain other things, in operation—and this concerns more closely Amendment No. 61 than Amendment No. 60—I should be quite ready to see whether we could devise some form of words which would usefully meet the case. If we can, then we will put them down on Report.
In conclusion, I would say this: do not do something which is expensive and which will not really give you good results. But, equally, do not try to impose a straitjacket and devise, or try to devise, some form or formula to which you are going to tie both the centre and the regions in the future, because I am sure that in a matter like this you are going to learn as you go along. Nothing is worse than to put into a straitjacket some organisation not yet born and which has its growth before it—growth which will be different in different region, to meet their varying experience and needs. Let us be careful, if we do have a form of words, to make it elastic and not to put it into a straitjacket, an action which we should afterwards regret.
6.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hope that the noble Viscount will leave the matter where it is. Even in the old days the railway companies were unable to divide
1354
up their area receipts and expenditures in the way suggested. Nor were the figures publishable. For the Transport Commission to try to divide up area expenses and receipts will be a quite impossible task, having regard to the overlapping that has taken place. The noble Viscount's own Amendment in-chides the words: "as far as is reasonably practical." Either the figures which he suggests should be published have to be completely accurate, or they must not be published. His own words "as far as is reasonably practical," show that he himself does not hope to arrive at really accurate figures.
LORD HAWKE: Many of us regard this as a very important Amendment—I am speaking in support of the second of the two Amendments, that standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and myself. Lord Bridgeman very much regrets that he cannot be here because he would have supported me strongly in what I am going to say. We all agree on the fundamental point of organisation, which is to decentralise. But from that springs a certain matter of psychology. We believe in the doctrine of giving maximum authority to the man on the spot. There is no politics in this. Probably, many people on all sides of the House agree with that view. All thinking men are beginning to realise that the defects of the nationalised industries may well spring from the fact that, first of all, they are centralised, and, secondly, that it is a functionary centralisation—in other words, the board of functionaries has authority over functionaries at the lower level, and thus override the men on the spot. So what we stand for is regional control of operation, with centralised overall control of major policy, together with the centralised control of functions where the advantages of the centralised control more than outweigh the disadvantages of taking away the control from the regions
Of course, there is room for a difference of opinion in the drawing of the frontiers between the centre and the regions. That is a matter for the Minister, the Commission and the scheme-framers to consider. My greatest fear in regard to this Bill and to the railways in general is that the railways may become a permanent burden on the taxpayers of this country. If the railways

1355
are to pay, we believe that regionalism is absolutely essential, with an esprit de corps among the staff including the regional general manager. If you give the regional general manager maximum authority, how can that authority possibly be complete unless by a monetary yardstick he knows where he stands from year to year? How can he see what the results of his decisions are, except in cash? Unless you find some way of apportioning that cash to him he loses interest in his decisions. In Russia he pays with his head when things go wrong. In this country, he should at least pay with a red figure somewhere in his annual report. We think it is absolute necessary that he should know how things go.
The statistics which are promised are not the same as the figures we have in mind. One must remember that railways are a disease. One can see hundreds of small boys writing down engine numbers, and I know two general managers whose delight is to play with toy trains. Without some monetary yardstick there is inevitably a tendency in all railway operators towards perfectionism regardless of cost. If you remove the monetary yardstick the general manager will be a producer of services and good statistics; he will not regard himself primarily as a producer of new revenue, which is what we want him to be. Lord Wolverton made very well the point about capital expenditure. The sky is the limit to the amount of money that can be spent upon railways, and proved to be more or less profitably spent. But there again this is a wholesome corrective. If the regional general manager knows that he has to produce a return on his money, he will be much more careful with the types of scheme which he is willing to sponsor. As an example, there is not an Eastern regional manager who would not like to tear down Liverpool Street Station to-morrow; but if he has to earn interest on the million or two pounds it would cost to build up a new station, his outlook is going to be a very different one. If all money is centralised, the demands for capital expenditure will be far greater and far less sound than they otherwise would be.
The arguments against this proposal are twofold. One which has not been deployed by the Government may, I
1356
suspect, influence their minds in the background. It is that they fear that if it were possible to show that some regions were profitable and others were not, it might hinder them in bringing in overall fare adjustments. I do not think that that need worry us very much. It happened often before the war. Then there is the question of cost. I believe there is some misapprehension as to what we want. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Falmouth is asking for a little more than I am. He is asking for a railway clearing house, which is a very elaborate organisation, though the percentage cost of that railway clearing house as against railway receipts is not a very formidable amount. But I am told that an arrangement could be made without a railway clearing house—a method for the nominal apportionment of receipts and for the cost of such centralised subjects as the law department, the police, wagon control, advertisements, perhaps some repairs, and soon, and also for the working expenses of through traffic. We do not demand that these figures should be absolutely exact. We demand a notional arrangement for distribution.
These things would provide a most valuable comparison from year to year, because once the system had been established the regions could see whether or not they were improving on the previous year. Moreover, they would be able to study the results of other regions and learn thereby. We believe that some such arrangements are essential if the railways are to pay their way. Whether the assurance of my noble friend the Deputy Leader is sufficient to cover those points, I am not quite sure—I should have to study it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not give any precise assurance. I said we should see what we could produce. It may be that what we produce will be so unhelpful that it will not satisfy anybody. As Lord Elibank has said, it might be better to leave it where it is. I do not want to stop my noble friend but, quite frankly, I should not go in for spending even a sum short of £1 million for a clearing house to produce costs which really are not going to be any good to anybody, and indeed might be misleading.
LORD HAWKE: I am assured that there is no question of the necessity for producing a clearing house, and I am

1357
glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank has been able to be prayed in aid by my noble Leader—he does not always agree with him. I would ask my noble Leader, when he gives further consideration to this matter, to try to arrange that the auditors of the Commission shall have an opportunity of stating their views.
LORD TEYNHAM: If we are going to have decentralisation, area managers should be allowed to know the financial position of their area. With regard to the wording of the Amendment, we have had certain assurances from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that he will show the working results in each area, and I hope the noble Viscount will devise some words which will be effective to that end. That is all we are asking. I consider that this is a very important Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: It is essential to have the costs of management. I hope that under the scheme when it is brought about those who are responsible for the running of the transport will be enabled to have some contact with their expenditure and their returns.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I cannot go further than I have done. If we put in certain words it will be as an indication of what we should like to see come about. We are extremely anxious that we should get what I have called this yardstick. That is why I say that if I put some words into this Bill, I do not want to be told afterwards that, having put them in, I and the Minister of Transport are making ourselves responsible for producing a scheme which will give a detailed system of accounts, showing the results as between each area. On that understanding—and I do not go further than that—I am prepared to ask the Minister of Transport to consult the experts on the way in which it could be done.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I wish to suggest that some form should be got out whereby the receipts in the different areas could be properly shown. That is what I am asking for. I am sure the noble Viscount will consider this w quickly as possible and put down an Amendment for the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES had given notice of two Amendments to subsection (6) (a), the first being after "directly concerned," to insert "either." The noble Earl said: I think I ought to explain, before moving this Amendment, that I am a director of a transport company. This part of the Bill comes under the heading of the organisation of railways. If your Lordships will look at subsection (6) (a) of Clause 14, I think you will agree that under the arrangements set up by this clause there is a possibility that road passenger transport may also come in. This subsection seems to me wide enough to permit the transfer to this authority, whatever it may be, of the control and management of bus companies. In other words, it might be used as an undesirable extension of the principle of the same board exercising control and management over both road and rail transport, and thus preventing healthy and reasonable competition between the two. That is my fear; and if that fear is not to be realised then my Amendment, or something like it, should be accepted. A possible case in point is the closing down of a branch line, or something of that kind, and the problem of supplying alternative road transport. That would be not a fresh conundrum but one that has been solved in practice without invoking any statutory power. In the unlikely event of its being necessary to invoke statutory power, this could be done under Sections 2 and 14 of the Act of 1947. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 25, after the second ("concerned") insert ("either").—(The Earl of Rothes.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: May I add a few words? I do not want to say much because I shall have something to say at a later stage on a similar subject. When I first read the clause it seemed to me that under it the Commission could run road passenger transport, In my own view this is simply a tidying-up Amendment in a clause which by itself must come up at this stage. I will not say any more at this point, except that I agree in general that the railways should not have anything to do with the running of road transport.
LORD GIFFORD: May I say that it seems to me that if this is not altered, there would be a danger of other areas' schemes coming into existence under this section?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lords for the brevity with which they have spoken on this Amendment—a most refreshing quality which the whole House enjoys. Noble Lords are correct in saying that if this Amendment were carried it would remove the possibility of the railway scheme including any reference to road passenger transport. Frankly, we are put in this position. We do not want, of course, to resuscitate area schemes as such, but there are a number of occasions when joint action may be necessary, particularly in the case of closing down branch lines, where it may become the duty of the Commission to supply a bus service of one character or another. And we are not able to say at this stage that we can avoid this. In fact, I think that at no stage can we say that entirely. I would remind noble Lords who have spoken that there is a considerable measure of safeguard in the Bill itself, particularly on the bus side.
In the first place, the Commission cannot acquire any additional companies except with the permission of the Minister. That is laid down in Clause 16 (5). Moreover, the passenger transport schemes laid down in the 1947 Act will be abolished or withdrawn under Clause 16 (1), if the Committee agree to that when we come to it. What I think is much more important is that the Commission now come under the licensing system and they cannot run buses except by means of a licence—we shall be discussing this later. The Minister has also power to require the Commission to dispose of the majority holding which gives them a controlling interest in bus companies. I would add this point, which I think is germane to what Lord Gifford has said: that the Commission have not the power to dissolve bus companies. Therefore, these companies, such as they are, will continue to exist, unless they are brought to an end with the permission of the Minister. I say, with reservation, that I think it would be very difficult to form an area scheme without dissolving companies which exist at the present time.
1360
I would add that we are anxious—and I think we are in entire agreement here—that the bus organisation, the road passenger organisation, should be run by bus men who understand it. We feel that that is important, and we should like to have something which we could put into the Statute which would ensure that. I am, however, a little at a loss to know precisely how that can be done. It may be that noble Lords will prefer to examine this matter more closely when the scheme comes along. The scheme will, of course, be in greater detail, and it may be that that will be a more appropriate time to make this point. I say, with respect, that we cannot at the moment exclude the Commission from running bus services in certain places where other people, for one reason or another, may be unwilling to do so. A full opportunity will be afforded, at the time when the scheme comes forward, to discuss this in greater detail. At the moment, I would ask noble Lords to let this Bill go forward now and see how matters go when the scheme comes along.
LORD HAWKE: With regard to the chief disquiet which I had in my mind, I gather from the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that our views are shared by the Government. We certainly do not want to see railways operating buses. We should rather like them to own shares in bus companies, but we do not want to see them operating buses. It seems to me that subsection 6 (a) of the clause opens a very wide door for the Commission of the day, taking their policy from the Government of the day, to start operating buses, which is a thing the Government of the day do not want, and we do not want. So I should have thought that between now and the Report stage the noble Earl might manage to find some formula of words which would cover what we want and at the same time leave open his little loophole for use on the very rare occasions when the railways might have to own buses to replace a railway where no one else would operate a bus service.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply, but I confess that in some respects I am rather disappointed. He says that the Government view is that power must be

1361
retained for road passenger transport to be included in a railway scheme. I cannot understand why he is not content with the power that already exists under the 1947 Act, which enables them to run a road service if it is necessary to do so. He cited the illustration of the shutting down of a branch line, or an extension of a railway service. I would remind him in that connection that under the Road Traffic Act, 1930—I think I am right in saying this—licensing authorities have the right to direct, as a condition of the licence, that certain services, even if they are unremunerative, shall be run. It therefore seems to me that, there are already ample safeguards: either some other firm will do what the railways require, in the event of the closing down of a branch line, or, if resort has to be had to statutory powers, there is the power under the existing Act. So I do not see quite why the noble Earl says he has to have this power under the railway scheme. If he will tell us that he will think about this matter further I will withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to put this point to the noble Earl. It is true that Section 2 of the 1947 Act includes the power of which he speaks. But if we are making a scheme for the railways should we not make a comprehensive scheme? Are we going to make a scheme which will suddenly pull powers out of another Act? We think it better to produce the best possible complete scheme. There is no suggestion of reintroducing area schemes, so I think we should be able to make our scheme a complete one.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I should like to ask the noble Earl what he means by a complete scheme. Presumably he means something which will cover feeder services. Does he mean running services instead of railway lines that are closed down? Does he also mean running feeder services throughout the area as a whole? I wonder whether the noble Earl can give me some sort of information about that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am not intending to give the noble Lord much information about this scheme at present.
1362
The noble Lord talks about feeder services, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, speaks of operating buses. I should like to remind the noble Lords that the whole of this proposal is subordinate to licensing under the 1930 Act. If the Commission wish to start up anywhere, they must first get a licence. If they do not, they cannot start. We merely reserve to the Commission the right to operate in the event of their getting a licence. I suggest that that covers the point which noble Lords have in mind.
LORDHAWKE: I am not sure that it does. What we have in mind is trying to keep the railways from operating buses. We do not mind their owning shares in bus companies. I do not think the noble Earl has been able to satisfy us on that. I understood that the noble Earl who moved the Amendment thought Lord Selkirk might like to look again at this matter.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Approval and Amendment of reorganisation schemes
(5) The power conferred by this section on the Minister to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and no order shall be made by the Minister under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
7.10 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to leave out subsection (5) and insert:
".Any power conferred by this Act on Her Majesty in Council shall be exercisable only by Order in Council, and subject as hereinafter provided, the Minister shall lay before Parliament the draft of any Order which it is proposed to recommend Her Majesty to make in Council under any provision of this Act, and no further proceedings shall be taken in relation thereto except in pursuance of an Address presented to Her Majesty by both Houses of Parliament praying that the Order may be made either in the form of the draft, or with such amendments as may have been agreed to by Resolutions of both Houses."
The noble Earl said: I believe that I am raising here an important Parliamentary point. I hope it is a point which will appeal to some Members on this side of the House and to some of those Member son the other side of the House who are conservatives with a little "c," as one noble Lord said yesterday. There really is no "catch" in it, and I assure the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House that I do not want to delay this Bill by introducing this matter.
Let me say at once that I am in favour of the system of statutory instruments. I do not believe for a moment that the complex system of government as it is to-day could be carried on without that system. I believe that the Negative Resolution procedure, or, in more important matters, the Affirmative Resolution procedure, is necessary and right, and that we could not carry on without it. There is a Committee sitting in another place now discussing this matter, and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House contemplated summoning a Committee here. I know that he had this intention because he told me so; but it has had to be postponed during his absence. I do not want to pre-judge the matter, but it is my belief that no Government in modern conditions could go on without this power. They would become completely cluttered up. It is only in the most exceptional circumstances that the procedure I am suggesting here would be adopted.
I believe that Parliament must legislate in the future on the line of laying down the skeleton of a scheme, leaving the sinews and muscles to be filled in more and more by means of statutory instruments. I do not want anybody to represent that I am not in favour of that view. But there may be rare and exceptional cases, of which I think this is one, where we are dealing with such an important matter and where the outline of the proposals is sketchy and indefinite, in which this procedure will be quite inappropriate. I will give your Lordships a simple illustration. The Government are confronted now with the difficulty of considering the Reform of the House of Lords. This is to be made all the more difficult because, unfortunately, the Conference, which I say frankly I had hoped for, does not look
1364
like taking place. Suppose the Government, confronted with this difficulty, came forward and said they were introducing a Bill, not to reform your Lordships' House but to give them power to promulgate a scheme which they could present to Parliament and which, if Parliament accepted it by an Affirmative Resolution, would become the law. There is not one of us who would not say that that would be an absolute abuse of the powers of legislation by statutory instrument. I purposely put an extreme case. I am perfectly certain that the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House will agree with me that no sane Parliamentarian would ever contemplate such a scheme as that.
What of the present scheme? Is it simply a scheme for adding by statutory instruments the sinews and muscles to a skeleton, or is it something much more than that? I maintain that the project in Clauses 14 and 15 is not a skeleton at all—it is a boneless wonder. We know absolutely nothing about it at all. The Government have come to Parliament and are asking for powers to promulgate a scheme, defining it in the most vague way—the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, actually said he was not going to air his views about it—and no one knows what the scheme is going to be. The Minister will decide who are the appropriate people to consult. Probably he will consult representatives of the employers and the trade unions, and he may consult all sorts and manner of authorities—the Band of Hope and the Band of Brothers, and anybody else he thinks suitable. Having heard their views, if he is a wise man, as he is, he will try to meet them. He will then promulgate his scheme. He has the right to put forward the scheme, with or without modifications. So far as I know, there is no legal limit to what is a modification. It will be his scheme. Having consulted all these eminent authorities, he will then come to Parliament and put forward his scheme, saying, "There is my scheme; take it or leave it." In other words, although the Minister will put it much more politely, there is no opportunity of a Committee stage. That seems to me the fundamental objection to this project.
When we look at his scheme, suppose that, on the whole, we like it, but that

1365
we think it has this, that or the other defect. Ought we not to be in a position to say that, while on the whole we think the scheme good, we should like one clause altered and another modified—that we should like an opportunity of moving Amendments? If the noble Viscount who is going to speak in opposition to me can give me an assurance, either in meal or malt, that we shall have an opportunity to move Amendments, so that the House can make their views felt in this way, I shall be happy and content. I am not trying to take a Party point of view but a Parliamentary point of view. I believe that it is essential that, when it looks at this scheme, Parliament should have an opportunity of amending it as it thinks necessary. I have put down my Amendment for this purpose. I have borrowed my words from the India Act of 1935, but I am not wedded to these particular words. Indeed, may be that the words in the next Amendment are just as suitable as mine for this purpose. I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment and consider what to do about it on Report stage if the noble Viscount can assure me that when we get this scheme we shall have an opportunity of moving Amendments to try and hammer out a better scheme. One illustration I may give relates to Scotland. On Second Reading there was considerable discussion on Scotland and obviously Scottish Members are deeply concerned about this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Home, did his best to give them some assurance, but he was making bricks without very much straw, because he did not know any more than anyone else what this scheme will contain. That is a perfect illustration of the argument that when we see the scheme we should have the right to move Amendments. Unless we can have this assurance I shall seek to adopt a much more drastic course at a later stage.
I believe that what ought to be done is this. Under the existing Act of 1947 there are complete powers to do everything in Clause 14 without any act of Parliament at all. But the Under-Secretary stated, I think rightly, that this was such an important matter that it ought to be done by Act of Parliament. It is obvious that the whole future of the welfare of our railways is an immensely important matter from every
1366
point of view. I believe that it would have been better not to try to deal with this in this Bill—and I am honestly not seeking to delay the Bill. I should have asked these people to present me with a scheme; I should have had my consultations; I should have come to Parliament with that scheme and I should have had a Bill, so that I could bring the whole matter before Parliament in the usual way. I believe that it would be better, therefore, to leave Clauses 14 and 15 out of this Bill. But I do not want to make this a controversial or partisan speech. I thought it might be easier for the Government if they would accept some scheme on the lines of the Amendment I have indicated, to be sure that we shall have an opportunity—and that there will be opportunity in the other place—in this wholly exceptional case, of being able to consider this scheme in detail, and, if necessary, to move an Amendment to this, that, or the other section of it.
I am sorry to have been as long as I have, but this is an important matter. I emphasise again that I am a believer in this delegated legislation, and that I feel it is essential. But where there is a matter of exceptional importance—and this is a matter of exceptional importance—where no details at all are given by the Government (and I do not complain), where they really do not know What they are going to do (they cannot know at the present time), I say that to propound a scheme in the sense, that the Commission merely consult with people, and then present it to Parliament as a fait accompli, is quite unsatisfactory. It is, of course, the fact that Parliament can refuse to accept the scheme. But any Parliamentarian knows that that is a very different proposition from moving an Amendment. If the noble Viscount can satisfy me (I speak for myself, at any rate) that he will devise some method so that we have what is, in substance, a Committee stage, at which we can move Amendments, then I shall not press this matter further. But that is the minimum I want. I believe that it would be better to leave these clauses out of the Bill, and I do not think that would cause any delay. The Commission could at once get busy with their scheme. If you have a Committee stage, as I have often said, it is desirable to have a Report stage,

1367
and all the machinery that we have, and you would attain the end if you left out these clauses and did it the alternative way. For myself, I am content to meet the noble Viscount by an Amendment on these lines, or on the lines of the Amendment following, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, and the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron—I am not tied to a particular form of words. However, I do not think it is fair to ask Parliament to accept a scheme now, subject only to the right when they see the scheme to say: "We do not like it." There must be the right to move Amendments. I am sorry for the length of time I have occupied, but for those reasons I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 43, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Jowitt.)
LORD BILSLAND: I think it will save the time of the Committee if I speak now on the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, which has a certain similarity to the next Amendment in the Marshalled List standing in my name. I want to ask the noble Viscount who will reply for an assurance on this matter, and if he is able to give that assurance I shall not then move my Amendment. I will not pursue—indeed I am not qualified to—the argument on procedure of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I want to be sure that there will be a full and free discussion on the Order when it is laid, so that if points of substance are raised, as may well be the case, the Order may be withdrawn, reconsidered and relaid in the light of the criticisms that may be made with regard to it. In the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill I submitted in detail the provisions which the Scottish Council, with which I am associated, considered as the minimum necessary to meet the primary needs and requirements in Scotland. They are, first, real devolution in the operation, maintenance and development of nationally owned transport services, and secondly, effective co-ordination of all forms of transport. The noble Earl, Lord Home, in his reply, while, I think, agreeing with the principle of devolution and co-ordination, said very little about the
1368
means by which these objectives were to be obtained. I appreciate that it was difficult for him to be explicit in advance of the submission by the British Transport Commission of their scheme for the reorganisation of the railways. But we in Scotland are left in a state of real concern that the scheme to be detailed may not meet what we conceive to be the Scottish need, and, in particular, that it may not provide for an adequate measure of devolution. It is for that reason that I ask for an assurance that there will be a full and free discussion when the Order is laid.
7.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is indeed an important Amendment, and the noble and learned Earl who moved it certainly has no need to apologise for having addressed the Committee at excessive length. I thought he addressed us concisely, and put the case, as one would expect from him, as well as it could be put. I should like to meet it equally fairly. The Committee will, I am sure, appreciate that procedure by a draft Order, subject to Amendment, is a very exceptional procedure. Indeed, I have been unable to find any case in which it was used except on the Government of India Act, 1935—and I expect the pundits on one side or the other would have turned another one up if it existed.
"Unique" is an adjective which is often misused, but I think I am right in saying that this was a unique procedure, devised on that particular occasion because the Government of India Act, 1935, was itself unique. It had features which had never been seen in any piece of delegated legislation before—inevitably, I dare say. I agree that you must have delegated legislation to-day, but I hope that Parliament will never be asked by a Government of any colour to carry delegated legislation to the extent that it was felt necessary to carry it in the Government of India Act, 1935. The amount of work in that Act which was left to be done by Orders was unbelievable. That Act was, in effect, a new Constitution for a sub-continent containing 400 million people and eleven provinces, and the intention was that the Act should, so to speak, be a foundation instrument through which India would develop to the same constitutional status as that of other members of the Commonwealth. It

1369
provided for a federal type of Constitution, but it included the most elaborate safeguards both for Indian minorities and for European servants of the Crown in India.
Although the Act contained, I think, 320 or more sections, it was felt necessary that in such a complex and important piece of legislation a vast amount of matters must be left over to be dealt with by Orders in Council, which were of enormous importance and which, in any other piece of legislation, would certainly have found their place in the Act itself. The Orders in Council not only covered matters relating to appointments in India, such as the salaries and emoluments of the Governor-General and judges of High Courts, but included provisions in regard to the franchise and the elections.
As the noble and learned Earl said, just imagine having a reform of the House of Lords and saying that it could be done by an Order in Council under an enabling Bill. But, as a matter of fact, that exactly what the Government of India Act did for India, because it left over the whole question of franchise and elections. Nothing could have been more difficult or more contentious, having regard to all the different communities in India and all the argument on one side or another whether and how far you were to have communal representation; how any system should be weighted, and so on. It was quite an amazing thing to put into an Order in Council. Inevitable it may have been, but it is, oddly enough, the exact counterpart of what the noble and learned Earl said. It would be an outrageous thing if we came and said, Let us legislate for the Reform of the House of Lords by an Order in Council under an enabling Bill."
It was because the India Act was so unique that, some provision had to be made by which these Orders in Council—every one of which would have justified a full dress Bill—could be dealt with in a way in which they could be debated clause by clause and amended. So this procedure was devised of having an Order laid which would be debatable in both Houses and amendable in both Houses. It was a procedure which I think noble Lords who experienced it—the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, will remember it—will agree was cumbrous and complicated, and certainly the
1370
officials of both Houses will recollect that it was extremely complicated to work as between the two Houses. There was a Committee in one House which got to one stage, and, then moving, so to speak, in echelon, another Committee here moved forward then that halted and somebody overtook, and there was a "to-ing" and "fro-ing" between the Houses. Anybody who had experience of that, either as a Member of Parliament or as an official, will pray Heaven that they will not have a complex procedure of that kind again. A great deal of good will was exercised but, of course, that procedure could easily take as long—and, indeed, longer, if people wanted to hold up something—as an Act of Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Bilsland said very fairly that he wanted to be sure that there was an opportunity for both Houses to discuss the railway scheme, not just as a general proposition, but to look at all the details of it before an Order was made. He said something about freediscussion—that, of course, there will be. I am not quite sure whether he was asking that there should be a free vote. He is a good enough Parliamentarian to know that, as in the case of some things I was asked about to-day, I am not prepared to deal with a hypothetical case by giving an unqualified undertaking in a matter of this sort. But, this procedure which we have laid down, and which has been used in the House before, has been particularly devised so that without running through a Committee stage, or having a special Bill, both Houses of Parliament can consider not only the general principles as on Second Reading debate, but all the details. That is accomplished by laying an Order in draft, and Parliament has found it a very practical way.
It is quite true that we cannot formally move an Amendment, but when a scheme comes forward, both Houses, I should imagine, would first of all say, "Well, broad and large, we think it is a good scheme"—because if everybody thinks it is a thoroughly bad scheme, then the Minister will have to take it away. But as very likely may happen, both Houses will express the opinion, "it is a good idea in principle. We like it, but here and there we think it goes wrong—may be over a Scottish thing We think you have overlooked this, or this would be better than that." I remember that we.

1371
had long discussions over details of regulations which were laid in draft about compensation. It will be open to everybody to express their opinion on the general and on the detail. Then it will be for the Minister to consider, but, after all, for the Minister to consider whether he should invite the House to accept or reject an Amendment. It will be for the Minister to consider whether he should ask the House to take the scheme as it stands or whether, having heard the debate and the criticisms of details, he thinks it would be wise to take the scheme back.
May I put the matter in this way? If the Government come to the House with a measure like this Transport Bill and move the Second Reading and they are beaten on Second Reading, that is a vote of confidence, and the Government have to go out. I do not say you could not come down with a tremendously important Order in Council and put it before the House, and say, "Well, if I am beaten on it, it is a vote of confidence." But generally the whole of this procedure by which the Order is laid in draft is in order that it may not be treated in any sense as a vote of confidence, but may be treated as giving both Houses of Parliament the opportunity for full, frank and detailed discussion on it.
EARL JOWITT: The noble Viscount is saying something important. There is nothing in the Bill which provides for laying in draft. Am I wrong?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, indeed. Subsection (5) says:
"The power conferred by this section on the Minister to make orders shall be exercise-able by statutory instrument, and no order shall be made by the Minister under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and has been approved…"
EARL JOWITT: This is so important that the noble Viscount will forgive my following it up. Is this the procedure: that there is, first of all, a draft laid, and then we can have a discussion on it; that document is taken back by the Minister, and then he proposes a new document or, at any rate, a document which is no longer a draft, and on that second document we have the discussion as to whether or not we give it our affirmative approval?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is laid in draft in order to make the distinction. We have done it before with regulations. I want to be absolutely fair with the House. Suppose by some miracle everybody thought that this was an inspired document, and everyone in both Houses rose up and called the Minister blessed and said this was a lovely scheme, it would go through with acclamation. It would then be all over bar the shouting and the scheme would come into effect. But there might be criticism and it is quite true that it would still be open to the Minister, if he liked, to ride roughshod over all criticism and to say, "In spite of all that, I ask the House to approve it." But the very fact that you lay the thing in draft in order to invite a discussion on its merits and not, as I have put it, in a sort of Second Reading, vote of confidence, atmosphere, makes the Minister, if he is wise, pay a good deal of attention to what is said in the House.
I have known several occasions where an Order has been made in draft. I remember a case in which the noble and learned Earl withdrew a regulation laid in draft because we were not sure whether we had given legal effect to the scheme. He said, rightly, "I think this is right, but I am not sure: it has been criticised by great lawyers and I should like to look at it again." There was another case where we had some difficulty in trying to gauge how we were to give compensation to people who had reasonable expectation that their job would go on for some time. There was no Party issue involved, and we discussed it at Great length. My recollection is that a regulation, as it was in this case, which could have been made under the Order, was laid in draft in order that the House might have just that kind of discussion.
It is perfectly true that if the Minister were foolish enough and got the support of his colleagues—and a foolish Minister would not always get the support of his colleagues—it would still be competent for him to say, "In spite of all criticism, I am going ahead." I may say that we do not have foolish Ministers in a Conservative Administration, or at any rate Ministers as foolish as that. The very fact that you submit this as an instrument laid in draft invites just that kind of

1373
criticism. It may be that as a result of future deliberations of Committees we may evolve some other procedure by which statutory instruments will be subject to some form of amendment. The more we have considered this the more difficult we have found it. I will tell your Lordships why. If both Houses were entirely composed of single-minded people who wanted to get business done in a business-like way, we could probably proceed quickly. But when there is a possibility of filibustering and you produce a statutory instrument of perhaps twenty pages, it is like giving the canary to the cat; it is an invitation to anybody to make trouble. But this is the way we propose to proceed; and our Parliamentary system being what it is, I think it is giving a real chance to the House.
Play has been made with the statement that we are not telling your Lordships in advance what is going to be in this scheme. It is said to be a "Boneless wonder" and so on. But we do not know, and that is why this procedure is devised. The noble Lord says it is so unique that it requires very special treatment, but that is not so. I must in fairness say that the late Government under their Act did nothing of this sort at all. Under the Transport Act of 1947, which has been so stoutly defended by its authors opposite, no opportunity of any kind whatsoever was given to Parliament to consider a scheme. Let me just refer your Lordships to Section (5) of the Act. I do so because Section (5) was the section which gave the Transport Commission and the Minister power to make any sort of scheme of delegation that they liked. Subsection (4) of Section 5 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 laid by the Commission and approved by the Minister."
Subsection (6) of the same section says:
"Any delegation effected by or under such a scheme may be expressed by the scheme or by, the relevant instrument issued there under to be subject to conditions and limitations and…every Executive shall…give effect…"
and so on. What does that mean? It means that under the 1947 Act, the Act under which we work at present, the Commission and the Minister could organise and reorganise, delegate, take
1374
back and re-delegate, without any reference to Parliament at all. Frankly, we should think it wrong to follow that precedent, which I do not think is very democratic.
This is rather interesting, because if we had had to rely on the powers under the Act, which I think we could have done, the noble and learned Earl would have had no chance of moving the Amendment he has introduced this evening. Therefore I venture to say that the proposal to lay this Order in draft in the way we do provides a happy mean of practical procedure; and for that reason I ask the House to accept the proposal in the Bill.
7.48 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We have listened with great attention and interest to what the noble Viscount has said. Of course it would be improper at this stage for me to suggest an Amendment to a later part of the clause, but as the noble Viscount has referred to this part of the clause I should like to point out that I think that on no occasion when referring to it did he refer to the precise words. I think he reversed the order of the words. He said that an Order made by a Minister under this section has to be laid in draft. That is not what the clause actually says. If the noble Viscount says it is the same thing it may be so, but I suggest that he may consider, either before we reach the other part of the clause or on the Report stage, a slightly different wording as follows:
"No Order shall be made by the Minister under this section unless such Order has been laid in draft before Parliament."
If that is what he intends to do, I do not think we shall press this Amendment to a Division.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will certainly consider this point. What it says is that the draft is laid and Parliament has the chance of improving it. Suppose there is universal approval, I do not think there is much point in taking it away and laying another. I should like to consider what the noble and learned Earl has said. In our opinion, this is done in this form because we want to have both the general and the detailed discussion. I am not sure that I appreciate that there is a distinction, but I should like to be advised on that. The noble and learned Earl appreciates that this is a legal drafting point, in the

1375
sense that a legal draftsman must be concerned with it. I will certainly consider that.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I should have thought that Parliament had got all it wanted in the Bill as we have it in draft before us. The Minister, by the terms of the Bill, has to lay his Order in draft. As I understand the difference, if you lay an Order not stated to be in draft, that Order operates from the time that it is laid; but if an Order is laid in draft, it does not operate so long as it is merely a draft Order. Under subsection (5) in the Bill the draft Order has to be laid in draft before Parliament, and it is not until the draft Order has been approved by both Houses that the Order is effective. I should have thought that we had a greater measure of Parliamentary control over this by subsection (5) than we are normally blessed with in most Bills that come before us.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Does that mean that the Minister would come back with a revised Order if there were objections?
LORD LLEWELLIN: He could.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If the Minister was impressed by the criticisms made, then he would say, "I will take this away; I am going to pay attention to those criticisms, and, so far as I feel that they are well advised, embody all or some of them." If he took that view, then he would have to take his draft back. That is the value of it. It would not be revoking an actual Order. And then he would lay another draft, and the same procedure would be followed.
EARL JOWITT: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount. I say, frankly, that although I do not think he has always done so in our discussions, on this occasion he has given us a closely reasoned answer. I venture to think there is not very much between us. We both want to preserve the sovereignty of Parliament in this matter. The only problem is how to do it. I shall certainly consider this matter further between now and the next stage in the light of what the noble Viscount has said, and I may perhaps have an opportunity of discussing it with him. I am inclined to think that we might do it in this way: we might have
1376
an arrangement whereby, let us say, on a day—for the sake of argument the first of the month—the Order is laid in draft and the House then has an opportunity of discussing it; then the Minister takes it away and comes back a week later—we will say, on the 8th of the month—and then promulgates the Order which is going to be the effective Order. That would mean that before promulgating that Order, which is the effective Order, he will have had the benefit of the criticism of the House. I am inclined to think that it can be done in some way like that—it need not be stated in the Act of Parliament itself. If we have an undertaking from the noble Viscount that that is what the Minister will do, then, speaking for myself, that will be good enough for me. I think we may be able to hammer out something on those lines. It is a matter of such importance—a Minister must do it by act of Parliament—and so much hangs and depends upon it, that I think something of that sort is necessary. In due course, I propose to withdraw my Amendment—I will not do it just now, because there may be other noble Lords who desire to speak on it—but I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the line he has taken and the way in which he has dealt with this matter.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I want to ask the noble Viscount one question, because he said that the defeat of an Order would be a matter of confidence, and the Government would have to resign. But, according to the Bill as it stands—I am not quite clear about the procedure—the draft Order has to be approved by Resolution of both Houses—that is to say, the Government have the opportunity to withdraw the Order, presumably without loss of confidence. But suppose that the Government choose to force it through, or tried to force it through, and the draft Order was defeated: would that be a vote of confidence?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I must not be pressed too far. All through the debate on a variety of subjects I am asked to say what the Government will do in an hypothetical eventuality which has not yet arisen. What I did say was that this form of laying the Order in draft and inviting full and unprejudiced discussion

1377
was quite unlike moving the Second Reading of a Bill where the Government were committed to a tremendous principle and where, if it were defeated, that obviously would be a major defeat and, I imagine, the Government would resign. I must not be asked to say in advance, if it were a draft, what line would be taken in any particular case.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: A draft?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: When it comes to voting upon it, there really is not much difference whether it is a draft or an actual Order. In fact it must be a draft, because if it were already an Order, then it would already be effective, and if it were negatived it would be by a Motion to revoke it—that is, like a Prayer.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am afraid that I am even more in a fog as a result of that explanation, because it would appear that the draft Order is in fact the Order.
EARL JOWITT: That is it.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: And becomes the Order.
LORD LLEWELLIN: It may become.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The draft Order becomes the Order if and when the Minister has asked both Houses of Parliament to pass an Affirmative Resolution to the effect that that shall be the scheme. Then it becomes effective.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: It becomes the Order?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But, when the draft Order is put on the Paper of the House, something must happen. You cannot take notice of a thing on the Paper unless there is a Motion, so the Government are bound to move that the draft Order be approved, and there will be a Motion.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Certainly there must be a Motion, The Order is put on the Paper and then the Minister comes down and moves that it be approved; but he moves that it be approved in the spirit that he wants a full discussion upon it, not in the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said, "I move the Second Reading of this Bill."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But supposing the Minister is rather impressed by arguments advanced by Members of the House, what does, he do then with his Motion?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: He takes it away. He says, "I withdraw my Motion that the House approve this Order. I want to take away this draft and I am going to produce another draft which will be in conformity with the criticisms which have so impressed me."
EARL JOWITT: I do not think that has ever been done. That would rather smell of a Parliamentary defeat, and Parliamentary prestige might be thought to be involved. Could it not be clone in a different way? Why cannot the Minister lay something and then have a discussion on it—call it "draft" or what you like; but, it would not be the actual document, which the House would be asked to approve. After the general discussion on the whole thing, there being no Parliamentary prestige, loss or defeat, let the Minister promulgate some document and let that document be the definitive Order which the House is to be asked to approve. It is a very complicated matter and we should both like advice about it; but, if the noble Viscount can meet me in some way of that sort, I shall be happy to meet him.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will certainly have a look at this. It may be that it could be done in a sort of combination of methods—that there could be a debate on the draft; then an Order could be made which might even be prayed against. On the other hand, if the Minister is impressed by the objections which are taken, I think I am right in saying that he then has to withdraw it and return with another draft. I think we had better have a look at this and see how we can get the maximum of Parliamentary debate and consideration without, as I see it, embarking upon the impossible task of having a draft which is subject to amendment and a long Committee stage.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I suggest that there is possibly some analogy in the case of redistribution, when a Report is laid and discussed by the House; and it is only after that discussion has taken place that the final

1379
decision is put forward, which must be voted for one way or the other. I think the noble Viscount will find some analogy in that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will certainly look into it. On the face of it, I am rather attracted to the idea of a general debate, then a little gap, and then something happening. It may be that an Order will be laid, and if people do not like it they can pray against it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I believe we did something like this in the case of the Highway Code. That was certainly fully discussed in the House. I am not sure whether or not we had to approve it, but it was laid and we had a long discussion in your Lordships' House. It was then taken back to the Ministry, where, following our discussions, I believe that some alterations were made. Some sort of procedure like that is what I think we all envisage.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: As I am associated with Lord Bilsland in an Amendment to this clause, may I just say that I am most impressed by what the Deputy Leader of the House has said. But before this discussion took place it occurred to me that possibly our Amendment, or the Amendment standing in the name of the noble and learned Earl, might not be the right way to go about this. I was going to suggest that a White Paper, or something like that, embodying the terms of the scheme, might be laid before the House, and then it could be debated. Now this discussion has arisen, and as the Deputy Leader is going to look at this again, may I suggest that something in the nature of a White Paper might be a way out of the difficulty?
EARL JOWITT: That is a good idea. I have no doubt that that is one of the things which the noble Viscount will consider. I think that, so far as is possible, we all wish to preserve effective Parliamentary control. That we shall not do if it becomes a question of the prestige of the Government, or anything of that sort.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I quite agree.
EARL JOWITT: I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion and have made helpful
1380
suggestions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BILSLAND LORD BILSLAND had given notice of an Amendment, in subsection (5), after "approved" to insert "with or without amendment." The noble Lord said: In view of the course of the discussion on the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Earl. I will not move the Amendment standing in my name.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Repeals and amendments relating to the Commission's functions with respect to road passenger transport
16.—

(1) Sections sixty-three and sixty-four of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relate to area schemes as to passenger road transport services), are hereby repealed.

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, sections seventy-two to seventy-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which relate to road service licences). shall apply to passenger road transport services provided by the Commission as they apply to passenger road transport services provided by other persons, and subsections (1), (3) and (4) of section sixty-five of the Transport Act, 1947 (which exempt services of the Commission from the said sections seventy-two to seventy-six and impose and confer on the Commission certain functions in respect of road passenger transport services provided by them), shall cease to have effect:

Provided that—

(a) any passenger road transport service which is being provided by the Commission at the passing of this Act shall be exempt from the operation of the preceding provisions of this section for three months from the passing of this Act and, if within the said three months an application for the grant of the necessary road service licence is duly made to the licensing authority for public service vehicles, until that application and any application for any necessary backing of the licence have been determined by the licensing authority or authorities concerned;

(b) any enactment in force at the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-seven which authorised any of the bodies mentioned in the Third Schedule to the Transport Act, 1947, to construct and maintain shelters, buildings or barriers shall have the same effect in relation to the Commission as it would have if subsection (4) of the said section sixty-five had not been enacted.

(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, it shall not be lawful for the Commission to run any public service vehicle as a contract carriage:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply so as to prevent the use of any public service vehicle as a contract carriage to carry

1381
a pleasure party consisting of persons employed by the Commission, with or without their families or friends.

(4) The following provisions (being an adaptation of provisions contained in section fifteen of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, which, until the coming into force of the Transport Act, 1947, applied to the London Passenger Transport Board)shall apply to the Commission—

(a) it shall be lawful for the Commission to run any public service vehicle as a contract carriage on roads within the London Passenger Transport Area and roads outside that area within a radius of ten miles, or, in the County of Kent, five miles, from any point on the boundary of that area;

(5) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section two of the Transport Act, 1947—

(a) the Commission shall not have power to acquire (whether absolutely or for any period) the whole or any part of any undertaking of any other person if the activities of that undertaking, or that part thereof, as the case may be, consist wholly or mainly in the provision of passenger road transport services;

(b) except with the consent of the Minister, the Commission shall not acquire or cause or permit any body corporate directly or indirectly controlled by them to acquire any securities if the acquisition thereof would bring under the direct or indirect control of the Commission a body corporate which is carrying on or is about to carry on an undertaking the activities of which consist wholly or mainly in the provision of passenger road transport services.

(6) Where—

(a) the Commission directly or indirectly control a body corporate which is carrying on or is about to carry on an undertaking the activities whereof consist wholly or mainly in the provision of passenger road transport services; and

(b) as a result of the Commission or any body corporate directly or indirectly controlled by the Commission disposing of any securities the Commission would no longer control the first-mentioned body corporate, whether directly or indirectly,

then, without prejudice to any other power of the Minister to give directions to the Commission, the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, direct the Commission to dispose or, as the case may be, to cause the second-mentioned body corporate to dispose of those securities at such times and in such manner as may be specified in the direction, and it shall be the duty of the Commission to comply with that direction:

Provided that the securities required to be disposed of shall not be more than is necessary to divest the Commission of control of the first-mentioned body corporate.

(8) Passenger road transport services provided by any body corporate which is directly or indirectly controlled by the Commission
1382
shall be deemed for the purposes of section six of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to Consultative Committees), to be provided by the Commission.
8.5 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to omit subsection (1). The noble Lord said: In view of the very long discussions that we have had, and the great distance that we have to travel before we adjourn to-night, I will endeavour to be very brief with this Amendment. The first subsection of the clause provides that Sections 63 and 64 of the Transport Act, 1947, shall be repealed. Noble Lords on this side of the House are somewhat concerned about the repeal of those two sections, although they are prepared to admit that when the new Bill becomes an Act some amendment of those sections will be necessary.
As we see it, this is the position. If road passenger transport in any area, or in all areas, is to be completely unregulated, then we may have cases where some areas are over-supplied with omnibuses or trams, and other areas have scarcely any at all. Moreover, we may find that in areas where there is a lot of transport running, the services will operate to the great inconvenience of the public. Therefore, we think that the Government should retain the powers given in the Transport Act of 1947, which enable the Commission to provide schemes for the co-ordination of the passenger transport services, in order that the interests of the public are fully served.
Section 63 of the 1947 Act provides for the schemes, and Section 64 provides for the things that can be put into the schemes. For instance, it may be necessary to decide which persons or interests should provide the services in a particular area. Where there are no services. arrangements can be made for services to be supplied. Thereby, everything possible is clone to ensure that the public interest is served. We feel that if the Government's proposal to amend those sections is carried, there will be no regulation to speak of, and the public interest will not be sufficiently well looked after. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 8, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): I thank the noble Lord, not only for the brevity but also for the clarity and manner in which he has proposed his Amendment. The Government's intention to repeal the power of the Commission to prepare area schemes for passenger road transport is clearly expressed in this Bill. The purpose of the Opposition in proposing this Amendment is to continue that power in operation. I cannot help feeling that they are really considering this matter in a state of slight misapprehension. After all, this scheme has never worked. Only one proposal has been put forward under the scheme, and it brought forth such a storm of protest from local authorities, users of road transport, and operators, that the late Government's Minister referred the scheme back to the Commission and never proceeded further with it. It is true that two further schemes were proposed, but because of the unfavourable reception which was promised for them, they were never proceeded with. This power has never even looked like a starter. Even if it had started, what is the need for it? The noble Lord speaks as though, without this power, there will be no regulation. But what about the licensing provisions? All road transport has to apply for a licence. Therefore, on behalf of the Government I would say that the Commission already have immense responsibilities of their own. We already have a system for licensing road transport, and I see no reason at all for adding what is really a fifth wheel to the coach. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am sorry that the Minister has given such a short and unkindly reception to this proposal. I think that he and the Government are wrong. If, for example, in an area to-day there is no road passenger transport service at all, it is not the business of the licensing authority, or, so far as I know, of any authority, to take steps to see that the matter is put right. So long as the powers are absent or not fixed upon someone as his responsibility, then, where there is a shortage of transport, that shortage will continue. Where there is a surplus of transport it may be true that the licensing authorities will be prepared to consider whether further licences should or should not be granted.
LORD TEYNHAM: I may be quite wrong, but I would suggest that under the previous clause, subsection (6) (a), the power of which the noble Lord has just spoken is already provided. Therefore we have discussed it on a previous clause.
LORD SHEPHERD: It seems to me that you are in some danger of mixing two things together. I would submit that if you have a Commission with authority to arrange details, especially where there is competition, it would make a great deal of difference to both the pleasure and the convenience of the public. I admit that a good deal of opposition is met with or likely to be met with in operating these two clauses. But I am not surprised at that because there has been at work in the country a powerful organisation which has been engaged not in providing a multiplicity of services, but in eating up the services around it. One organisation at the present time runs 11,000 vehicles. The Government will undoubtedly meet with opposition and they have got to decide whether the service of the interests of the public is greater than the trouble of dealing with this opposition.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, if in fact he will give us the name of the organisation which as he has just said is running 11,000 vehicles. My second point, which is more important, is that he has raised the question of the power of the licensing authority to go into the matter of public convenience and the timing of bus routes. In my experience the licensing authority takes good care to go into those questions. It has the power to stop certain surplus services which are in its opinion not necessary. It has the power to say to an undertaking, "No; because you would not take on another means of service in that area we cannot allow you to take on this." In fact there are hundreds of licensing authorities all over the country which have a most responsible attitude towards the services which are provided.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Marquess has asked whether I would furnish the name of the organisation which at the present time is running 11,000 vehicles. I will not do so in open Chamber—that is the rule I have always followed—but if he will approach me personally later I will undertake to give him the name.
EARL DE LA WARR: It has been asked what happens if an area has no service. The Minister could issue directions and a service would have to be provided. The power is there.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
8.17 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Lord said: A great deal of what the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow said now comes under this and subsequent subsections of this clause. We are going right through this clause, subsection by subsection, and this particular subsection deals with the question of licences. The arrangement under the Act of 1947 will be done away with, and three months after the passing of this Bill these passenger vehicles operated by companies owned by the Commission will come under the licensing authority in the same way as all other passenger vehicles do now. The Minister has appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole operation of the licensing provisions of the Road Traffic Act. I am going to suggest that this particular subsection might be strengthened in this respect.
I know the Minister has given an undertaking that he does not intend to enforce some of the provisions in this clause until the Committee has reported, but, as I said on Second Reading, something will have to be done sooner or later concerning the charges, or the arriving at what are fair and equitable charges, to the public for road passenger transport. This is operated to-day under twelve licensing authorities, all with their varied philosophies of what should be charged. Here can be seen two or three yardsticks. There are three systems of arriving at fares, forcing the passenger transporting concerns to have a variety of fares for their services under the road passenger transport system. One system is applicable to buses, and that comes under the licensing authorities; another to trolley buses and tramcars operating under a different system, and that comes under another authority; and London transport, in the last analysis, under another, the Central Transport Tribunal. It is possible under this system for road passenger transport to be a very unfair competitor of the railways.
What I had in my mind—and I shall return to this point when we are discussing
1386
a later clause; leaving out the reference to road transport—is that the Minister, or the Government, purports to be now setting up a scheme by which there will be a free and fair field for all, But there never can be, because while you have the railways under public control, running a public service, a service which the public demand, the fares of the people who travel have to be spread over a nation-wide structure. It is useless for noble Lords or anyone else to think that the railways can ever compete with road passenger transport unless the country is prepared to throw overboard the whole system of universal train fares. It has sometimes been asked by members of the public, who are excusably ignorant in this matter: "Why is it that a coach can run from London to Edinburgh and carry me at about a third of the price which I have to pay if I travel by rail?" Of course, the fact is it does not. The railways could take any noble Lord from London to Edinburgh profitably at a rate, I should think, of well under a halfpenny a mile—and they would make a lot of money—if the public would pay about two shillings and two pence a mile for travelling from Slopcombe-on-the-Slush to Biddecombe on the Moor, or wherever it is. You have to appreciate that the railways have to run a timetable service with great regularity.
The operator of buses, on the other hand, chooses his load, chooses his time, and chooses his timetable. Something must be done sooner or later so that all these considerations can be taken into account. It is possible under the present licensing system for a bus service that runs parallel and in competition with the railways to charge a very low fare, and for the same bus company to run buses on a route where there is no competition with the railways and charge a higher fare. Is that the sort of competition that you want? Then you find that the philosophies of licensing authorities vary in this connection. I do not speak without experience in this matter, because it happens that I spent some very interesting years of my life in the Ministry of Transport and I was the unfortunate member of the Ministry to whom appeals against awards of licensing authorities had to come. You found one licensing authority whose philosophy it was that sub-normal

1387
fares and concessional fares should never be charged, and their idea was to do away with them as soon as possible. Another philosophy was that expressed by a licensing authority in words something like this: "I want to see it taper"—that is to say, the further you travel the less you pay. Yet another authority, apparently, had the idea that there should only be return fares and no single ones.
The charging system is—if I may use such an expression in your Lordships'House—simply cockeyed. I think the time has arrived when this matter has got to be gone into. As I have intimated. I am going to return to the wider aspect when we discuss another clause of the Bill, but I thought that I would raise this particular matter on this particular clause, because this is where you are dealing with the licensing provisions of the Road Traffic Act, and you are seeking to alter to some extent what is laid down in the Road Traffic Act. You have appointed a Committee to advise the Minister on the operation of the Act. Therefore, you will not do very much under this clause until you get his report. What does this clause do in effect? Nothing very much. So I ask: Why not wait till you can do something and have some really successful approach to this problem?
Be sure you are going to get upheavals all over the country. Look at the trouble in London—and that, too, is a matter with which I am going to deal. The Government will only add fuel to the fire by this Bill. Already there is outcry in every town. But I am not going to waste any more time on this now. I am not disposed to "die in the last ditch" upon this matter. I simply thought it was worth rising to speak upon it, and I hope that I shall get a sympathetic reply from the noble Earl. You are setting up a new philosophy in the transport of this country. You are doing a lot of things under this Bill. We have had a very interesting discussion between the respective Leaders in this Chamber upon a railway scheme. You are doing a lot with road transport, both passenger and goods—at the moment, of course, we are dealing with passenger transport, not with goods. Why not try and do as much as you can successfully? Do not tinker. You are tinkering with the problem now.
1388
You are not going to cure the trouble this way. You are patching up; you are sticking on little bits of plaster here and there, but you are not taking steps to cure the basic trouble. The basic trouble is that there is no co-ordination in this country to-day between the various authorities who have responsibility for fixing the fares to be paid by people who use the various methods of transport. In some cases there is no tribunal. In some cases there is a loose tribunal and in some cases there is a cast-iron tribunal. Why not look at the whole thing and see what you can do? I beg to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 22, line 11, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I would venture to make a few remarks on this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made the point that there were twelve licensing authorities to decide fares throughout the country. I think that is right. But I think all those authorities do proceed on a case law that has been built up over a series of years. I think that coach fares are fairly consistent throughout the country. The noble Lord, I believe, will find that that is a correct statement. But with regard to the principle which he enunciated so clearly as regards competition between road and rail, I do not think anyone could deny for a moment that buses can go wherever there is a road and a train can go only where there is a track to take it. So there must be certain advantages under certain conditions in favour of road transport.
That difficulty, I think, was fully appreciated before railways were nationalised. Certain railways entered into partnership with the bus-owning concerns—incidentally that happened in the case of the company with which I have the honour to be associated—and they did own shares in many cases in numbers equal to ours. In many cases, too, the general public joined as well. There was co-ordination in running those services and the railways did get the benefit of the profit made by the bus companies, so that, to a certain extent, they were able, as it were, to make up on the swings what they lost on the roundabouts. I think, on the whole, that was a fair and sensible way of dealing with the problem. But what

1389
does present a far greater problem is when you have road and rail under the same authority, road being the junior partner of the concern, always having to defer to rail, and not being free to develop a bus service in the way it should develop, because I maintain that buses should be managed by busmen who are anxious not only to develop their business but also their bus routes in order to serve the public. That does not happen when they are under the dual ownership of the railways; many instances of that can be quoted. I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Lord. I am all in favour of partnership, but, above all, I am in favour of healthy and reasonable competition between the two. If there is some reasonable way of partnership or other method of sharing profits, by all means let them have it. I hope the noble Earl in front of me will not accept this Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not find myself in agreement with all that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, but I agree that he has put his Amendment in an extremely interesting manner. I think he has been led away by his great knowledge and experience of his subject, which has led him into the mistake of introducing the whole question of road-rail competition. Perhaps he will be satisfied with my assurance that I have taken considerable note of what he has said and that I will convey his arguments to the Minister. I feel it my duty to deal with the limited point raised by this Amendment. It is not really a question of justice between road and rail, but of justice between different sections of passenger road transport.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If it would help the noble I will accept his assurance. I do not want to waste his voice.
EARL DE LA WARR: I prefer not to accept this Amendment, but if the noble Lord will not press it—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. I made my speech in order to register the position in his mind and in the Official Record of this Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
8.33 p.m.
LORD LUCAS of CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS of CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I hope the noble Earl will be able to help me, because here I am in a difficulty. Subsection (3) says
"Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, it shall not be lawful for the Commission to run any public service vehicle as a contract carriage:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply so as to prevent the use of any public service vehicle as a contract carriage to carry a pleasure party consisting of persons employed by the Commission, with or without their families or friends."
At the present moment the Commission do not run any contract carriages. The Commission's road passenger fleet is organised into companies, and the companies can run contract carriages. That has been decided in law. The Commission hold the share capital of their companies, amounting to £ 73 million. In this clause the Government seek to give the Minister power to dispose of the majority interests of the Commission in the forty separate companies under their control. There may come a time in the evolution of the system which this Bill is going to set up when the Government will want to run a contract service; but according to this clause, they cannot do it. Either the clause has some meaning that I do not understand or it is redundant. The clause refers only to the provinces, because all the buses in the London area are run by the London Transport Executive. Strictly speaking, the Commission do not run any contract carriages, but under the Bill they may wish to do so at some future date. Is it wise to have this in the Bill?
LORD GIFFORD: The noble Lord has mentioned the companies but he has omitted altogether the London Transport Executive, which is on a different footing.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I thought I said "with the exception of the London Transport Executive." I am leaving them out and dealing with the provinces. The British Transport Commission's wholly-owned road transport services are run by fort) companies and they run contract carriages; the Commission do not. I think I have said enough to explain my mystification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 42, leave out subsection (3). —(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I am not sure whether the noble Lord appreciates that this subsection does not operate against the companies of which the Commission have control.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, it cannot do that. It is not the Commission who run contract carriages.
EARL DE LA WARR: I have a note here informing me that the Commission are not making use of the powers which the noble Lord is anxious to keep for them. I should like to give the noble Lord the reason for this subsection. It is a question of fairness. The Commission are in a position to operate as amonopoly. The noble Lord wants them to have power to run contract services in competition with private operators. With a background of monopoly, obviously, the Commission will be in a position to make conditions of unfair competition against a company who have not that background of monopoly.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am mystified. The Commission own the whole of the shares in forty provincial and Scottish bus companies to the tune of £73 million. But we have not seen "B.T.C." painted on any bus in this country. We see the S.M.T., and that of all the concerns owned by the Commission. They are all legal entities which have the power to-day, under the law of this country, to run contract carriages. That has been established. Until the Commission own physically a fleet of their own, or one bus of their own—which is not the case at present—how can they want to run a contract carriage? The monopoly to which the noble Earl has referred—which, in effect, is not a monopoly—comes about by the owning by the British Transport Commission of the shares in forty different bus companies. The British Transport Commission by themselves, in the name of the British Transport Commission, cannot run a contract carriage. They do not own a bus.
LORD TEYNHAM: I may be wrong, but I would say that under Clause 14 (6), which empowers the Commission to own
1392
buses to put on a particular road, in the event of a branch line being closed down, and so on, they could equally use that power to own buses and run contract carriages. I think the power is there. The noble Lord is arguing that the Commission have not the power to run contract carriages, and that only the London Transport Executive have such a power.
EARL DE LA WARR: And the London Transport Executive are already there.
LORD GIFFORD: As I see it, subsection (3) applies only to the London Transport Executive.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, it does not.
EARL DE LA WARR: It applies mainly to the London Transport Executive. There are these other services, of course.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: Would the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, not agree that where the Commission are holding the entire share capital of the forty companies, they are in control of the management; and that, in fact, although legally you may say the Transport Commission are not going to run this or that, they are in a position to tell any company they like, of which they own all the shares, to do exactly what they want them to do at any time they want them to do it?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then I should like to ask this question. Does it mean that this clause ought to read: "It will not be lawful for any bus undertaking owned by the Commission to run any public service vehicle as a contract carriage"? If it means that, then I am in violent opposition straight away, because the bus companies do operate in this way at the present time.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord withdraw the Amendment?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, in the proviso to subsection (3) to leave out "Commission" and insert "London Transport Executive." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the proviso to the subsection which we have just been discussing and relates to pleasure parties. Whatever may be the future, at present the organisation concerned is the London Transport Executive. This Amendment, which among some noble Lords has been known jocularly as the "Picnic Party Amendment," deals with what is, on the face of it, a quite harmless concession, and one which perhaps a normally good employer would make. But, as the clause is now worded, I think it is open to abuse. There is nothing to prevent, say, two drivers from a depot meeting friends in a social club, and a London Transport vehicle being used for a club party with no employees of the Transport Commission in the party except the two men, who might be getting the vehicle at a concession rate and taking their friends down to the seaside free. As worded at present, it would also allow, for instance, the staff of Gleneagles Hotel, or the bargeman of the Crinan Canal Company, to go outside the London Transport Executive area on a party, which I do not think is the intention. If I could have an undertaking that this concession would be strictly watched, and not abused, that would be a great help. In any event, I think it should be confined to employees of the London Transport Executive, who are really the direct employees working the vehicles concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 2, leave out ("Commission") and insert ("London Transport Executive").—(Lord Gifford.)
LORD BURDEN: Could the noble Earl say what is his understanding of the words "employed by the Commission"? It could be construed as only employees of the headquarters of the Commission at 55, Broadway. Or has it a wider connotation? I am merely seeking information.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord ought to know the 1947 Act better.
EARL DE LA WARR: It will be the Commission in the widest sense. It will be people like the railway employees.
LORD BURDEN: That is all right.
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope that the noble Lord is not going to press this Amendment, because I think it would restrict too much the use that the Commission are able to make of their transport for this purpose. As the noble Lord knows, it is merely a matter of contract carriage for their own staff. He wants to restrict it purely to the employees of the London Transport Executive. I understand his fears of abuse, but I think we must assume that a public body administers its business properly. It might be that in London the Commission would want to use it not strictly for those working for the London Transport Executive, but for railway men, and I think it would be unreasonable to stop them from doing so. I cannot believe that this is an important point, because I do not think it will arise a great deal. I suggest that the noble Lord is asking us to make this restriction too narrow.
LORD GIFFORD: I am sorry the noble Earl does not feel he can accept this Amendment. I should like to point out that if this privilege is used in a very general way it will adversely affect many small operators of contract vehicles, whose entire livelihood is derived from running these party trips, staff outings, and so on, to the seaside. I know that it is a difficult question. Perhaps my wording does restrict it in such a way that the noble Earl cannot accept the Amendment. But if I could have an undertaking from him that the Commission will be asked to see that this privilege is used only for what I might call genuine staff parties, and will not be a loophole for two or three employees of the Commission to take, say, thirty outsiders on a trip, I should be grateful.
EARL DE LA WARR: Speaking personally, that seems to be a very reasonable point, and I will certainly undertake to look into it.
LORD GIFFORD: I thank the noble Earl for his undertaking, and in view of it I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.50 p.m.
THE EARL of SELKIRK THE EARL of SELKIRK moved, in subsection (3), to add to the proviso:
"or to carry any party on any journey which begins or ends within the city of Sheffield, the county borough of Halifax, the county borough of Huddersfield, or the borough of Todmorden."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is something of an oddity, and arises from the historical position and the historical development of road transport in certain parts of the country. The parts of the country immediately concerned are the city of Sheffield, the county borough of Halifax, the county borough of Huddersfield and the borough of Todmorden. For a considerable time in those areas there has been a working arrangement between the railway companies and the local authorities. That working arrangement has gone on right through the period of the last seven years. We consider that the only satisfactory way to the people who live there is to permit this slightly unusual, but on the whole not very extensive, system to continue. We are proposing, therefore, that contract carriage which begins or ends in Sheffield, Halifax, Huddersfield and Todmorden should be permitted if carried out by the Commission. That is over and above an extension of the provision which we have just considered.
I should like to make this point. We realise that it might perhaps be possible to extend this provision further than it is intended, but we find it very difficult to be fair without putting it in the terms in which it is at the present time. I have to point out, of course, that whether the Commission had power to do this or not, their companies could certainly do so. In any case, any other bus company would be perfectly free to offer for a contract carriage of that character. I put this forward to your Lordships. I think it is the fair way to do it, and it will certainly be a considerable inconvenience to the people of those localities who have been accustomed to this form of contract carriage if it is not done. I may say that we are not being doctrinaire in our approach, but practical. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 2, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I do not quarrel in any way with the intention of this Amendment, nor do I wish to be a
1396
killjoy. I believe it is a fact that the noble Earl said that contract carriages are already run from these four places. I am rather concerned with the words "or ends," because it seems to me that if the Amendment is accepted you could run a carriage from the London Transport Executive area which would end in Sheffield, Huddersfield, Halifax or Todmorden, and, therefore, would come under this clause. From what the noble Earl has said, I do not think that was his intention. Would the noble Earl be so kind as to look at the wording again before a later stage of the Bill, with particular reference to the words "or ends"?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am very glad to accept the noble Earl's invitation. I thank him for what he has said in accepting the principle of this Amendment. We certainly do not intend this to be made use of, for instance, for special bus runs from London to see Sheffield Wednesday or some other sporting event. That is not the intention at all, and I quite agree that if there is a possibility that that might be done, we should see if it is possible to re-word it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.54 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after subsection (3) to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) The duty of the Commission under section 3 of the Transport Act, 1947, as amended by this Act to provide or secure the provision of an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport for the London Passenger Transport Area shall be discharged by the London Transport Executive in exercise of functions delegated to them by or under a scheme made under section 5 of the Transport Act, 1947, but notwithstanding anything contained in that section the London Transport Executive shall not under or by virtue of any scheme of delegation or otherwise be empowered to provide road services of stage or express carriages except on any of the following roads, that is to say—

(a) on any road within the London Passenger Transport Area;

(b) on any road outside that area being a road specified in Part II and Part III of the Seventh Schedule to the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, or on any road in that part of the Urban District of Thurrock in the county of Essex which formerly was within the Urban District of Grays;

(c) in accordance with working agreements made in pursuance of section 18 of that Act on any road outside that area within a radius of ten miles or in the County of

1397
Kent five miles from any point on the boundary of the London Passenger Transport Area:

Provided that—

(i) a service provided by the Commission within the London Passenger Transport area may for the purpose of reaching a convenient terminal point or stand be extended for a distance of not more that half a mile or in the County of Berkshire one mile beyond the boundary of that area, and

(ii) the Commission shall not both pick up and set down a passenger on any road specified in Part III of the said Schedule or within the Borough of Luton."

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the restricted area of operation of the London Transport undertaking (which is clearly set out in Section 15 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933) is in fact continued. I would point out that unless this Amendment is inserted in the Bill, it would appear that the door is wide open to further expansion by London Transport beyond what was possible under the 1947 Act. As the Bill is drawn, I think the Commission could in fact empower London Passenger Transport to operate outside their monopoly area and operate anywhere in the country, subject to obtaining an appropriate road service licence. This, of course, is something they could not do before the 1947 Act.
I would further point out that the duty imposed upon London Transport by Clause 23 (1) of the Bill, to provide for the London area a co-ordinated system of passenger transport, means, I would say, that they can pray this in aid to strengthen any application they may make to run buses outside their monopoly area. Again, I would say that the effect of Clause 16 (4) (c) appears to impose a statutory duty upon a licensing authority to show partiality towards an application for a road service licence by London Passenger Transport in preference to an application by a private operator for a route outside the London area. I must say that this is rather an amazing clause, because the dice is heavily loaded against the private operator. Yet I cannot help feeling that this is not the real intention of the Bill, and I would ask Her Majesty's Government to look at this Amendment very closely. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, after line 2, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has certainly put his finger on what is rather a question of principle. In the first place, this is nothing to do with contract carriage at all—it is ordinary passenger road transport. His objection clearly arises on this, and it is an arguable case. The Commission, through the London Transport Executive, is working from a monopoly, and from that strong monopolistic position can gradually spread outwards. I quite appreciate the noble Lord's point and I think it is a real point. I agree that, it is an extension of the 1947 Act. On the other hand, it is not true to say that the Commission can compel their own buses to operate because, as he said himself, they are entirely subject to the licensing authority. I know noble Lords opposite are not interested in this because they do not believe in licensing, and I have to be quite frank on this matter. This is where we do believe in licensing, and we believe that there can be a fair licensing system in which both the Commission and private organisations can take part. That is fundamental to the Bill, and the position is that, whereas there exists a complete monopoly inside what is technically known as the London special area, outside that area there is no operation except by licensing and, therefore, all organisations are free and appear on the same footing.
The noble Lord has drawn attention to Clause 16 (4) (c) as regards the duty of the Commission to "provide or secure." But the London special area is a pretty large area, and there is no doubt of the necessity for keeping the fringe area properly supplied. The London Transport Executive has, in fact, considerable responsibilities in bringing people daily to their work and their services must be closely co-ordinated.
We will look at these words and see whether the duty may seem to be put too high; but I am not inclined to think that it is in that respect. What, of course, remains is this: that outside the London area the Commission are free to supply services anywhere, and that is a considerable extension of the 1947 Act. That is always subject, however, to the licensing authority. I have tried to explain this point and, as I say, I will look at it. I must point out, however, that

1399
technically the Amendment is not satisfactory—for two reasons. First, it refers to the London Transport Executive, which of course is not really a statutory body. It may cease to exist as such and, indeed, may be abolished like other Executives. I am not saying that it will be abolished, but technically the words should refer to the Commission and not to the London Transport Executive as such.
Secondly, as the noble Lord has pointed out, under Clause 23 the Commission have power to provide services
"in such places…as may appear to the Commission to be expedient."
This Amendment deliberately schedules the area in which the Commission can provide services. We prefer to leave it to the decision of the licensing authority. We believe that that will be effective and that the authority will not act unfairly in the matter of the balance which we are trying to attain. In the circumstances, I suggest that the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
9.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment, especially as my noble friend Lord Long is unable to be here. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said that he wants to leave this situation open to be decided by the licensing authority. If the London Transport Executive is to be allowed to enlarge itself, piece by piece, every time it seeks to enlarge itself beyond its present area it will have to go to the licensing authority and pray in aid that it has a statutory duty to serve an increased area because its passengers inside London want to get there. There is a great difference between a statutory duty and a statutory power; and it might well bring great influence to bear on the licensing authority if they felt they had to decide between someone who had a statutory duty, and a purely private omnibus company. The noble Earl says that he does not wish to confine the London Transport Executive because he wants a fluid situation so that he may alter his mind. Is that fair? Here is the London Transport Executive with a complete monopoly in the area, which the noble Earl will not define
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: There is no question of the monopoly being in any way changed. It is absolutely static in the London special area.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I quite follow the point, but the noble Earl does not mind the monopoly overstepping the boundary.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Not the monopoly.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: The vehicles are the monopoly.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: They can pick up passengers or set them down.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I ask the noble Earl to be kind enough to look into the matter, at any rate, for these are two important points.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I shall be glad to look at these points. The end of Clause 16, subsection (4), paragraph (c), talks about:
"…an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport for the London Passenger Transport Area."
There is no chance of that area becoming extended. On the other hand, I appreciate what the noble Earl says. We are anxious that the fringe traffic should be as valuable and as serviceable as it can be; but if the noble Earl thinks the bias is too heavily placed in the clause, we will certainly look at it again.
LORD TEYNHAM: We are grateful for the noble Earl's indication that he will look at this matter again. The point we are worried about is the word "duty" which appears in Clause 23, but in view of the assurance given by the noble Earl I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.8 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (4) (a), to leave out "ten" [miles] and insert "seventy-five." The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment. With the Committee's permission I will deal with Amendments 71 and 72 together, since they hang together. I will try to be very brief, but I hope that my brevity will not be taken as an indication of any lack of importance in the Amendment. At the present moment, the London Transport

1401
Executive have the right to run contract carriages. I invite the Committee to consider that this is not a monopoly: they have no monopoly right to run contract carriages. The business they get from their contract carriage is in open competition with every other provider of contract carriage passenger transport, and it has proved a remunerative business. In point of fact, for this year, in the summer months they are fully booked for work for about 350 contract carriages; and I think they have inquiries for another 1,000 or more of these particular trips. This is a service which they can run until this Bill becomes an Act; they cannot do so afterwards.
If noble Lords opposite want to be fair in setting up this Eldora do of free competition, "where every prospect pleases" and only the British Transport Commission "is vile." why do they wish to deny to London Transport the right to enter competitively without monopoly and to secure this business? It is, to me, an amazing thing that at the present moment, in the middle of an outcry about the London fares, while the case is being argued and the London County Council are raising all this trouble about the way in which London fares are going up, this Government are proposing to rake from the London Transport Executive thousands of pounds which would go into their revenue to relieve the pressure on the ordinary payer of London fares. To me that is inexcusable. Why do the Government want to deny London Transport Executive the right to carry on this very valuable business, without preference or monopoly? Why do the Government want to deny them the chance of earning money which would go into their revenue to relieve the pressure on the ordinary fares which are the subject of such pitiful appeals to the Transport Tribunal? That is my simple case. This Amendment seeks to restore the position. The Bill seeks to restrict to ten miles from the London Passenger Transport Area, with an odd five miles in the County of Kent, the radius within which the Commission may operate these public service vehicles. That is my simple case. I beg to move.
Amendment Moved—
Page 23, line 11, leave out ("ten") and insert ("seventy-five").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
9.12 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think there is really only one point here which the noble Lord has made. He has used the words "open competition" It comes down to what is our definition of "open competition." If you are a great monopoly, with a turnover of £60 million a year, with the immense financial resources and funds that arise out of it, nobody can compete with you in your own area at all. It is suggested that this monopoly should be able to sally forth on to the roads, in competition with other operators who have not the benefit of that solid background of business. The noble Lord considers that "open competition." We do not. That is the difference. So far as I can see, it is a fundamental difference in point of view. Turning now to the details, the noble Lord made a great deal of this robbery of the London Transport Executive, of the immense source of profit that it made from this conduct.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Not "immense." Let the noble Earl be accurate. I named a figure of a few thousand. I did not say "immense." I mentioned "thousands of pounds." Let us be accurate.
EARL, DE LA WARR: I apologise to the noble Lord. I misheard him. As a matter of fact, he is right: it is actually a matter of £ 40,000 on a total turnover of £ 60,000,000, so he will realise that it is not likely to have a profound effect on the London fares.
I should like to give the noble Lord one assurance on this. He referred to "existing bookings"—Iam not sure whether this can be done under the Bill as it stands, or whether it would mean looking at the Bill between now and Report, but I give him an assurance that we will certainly look into the point to see whether some special consideration cannot be given to existing bookings. Beyond that, I think there is a quite fundamental difference here between us. I am afraid I could not agree to accept this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There is not a fundamental difference because the noble Earl has padded his case. What he is really saying is that, because London Transport run all of London's buses and can live comfortably

1403
on that, they should not enter into any other branch of the road passenger transport business—that is, on contract hire. You might level exactly the same charge against any municipality in this country which runs its own bus transport in its town and runs contract carriages at the same time. You do not take away the right from the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, who has presented such a wonderful case for British Electric Traction this afternoon. He can run buses. He is the next biggest bus owner in this country, but he can run contract carriages.
LORD GIFFORD: They can run contract carriages in their own areas.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The others can run contract carriages outside their own area.
EARL DE LA WARR: They are not a monopoly. Could the noble Lord tell me any municipality which in fact has the power to run contract carriages outside its own area?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I can do that.
EARL DE LA WARR: Very rarely.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is very rare.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But they can do it. The noble Earl says "very rarely." This allegation of monopoly is not true. The noble Earl has very rightly—and I appreciate it very much—talked about making some concession for this year's bookings. That would at least allow the noble Earl and his colleagues a chance of discussing this subject with the powers that be. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.16 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (5). The noble Lord said: May I have your Lordships' permission to deal with Amendments Nos. 73 and 75 together? It will save your Lordships' time, it will save my speaking twice and it will perhaps save other noble Lords from speaking.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Which Amendments are you proposing to take?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Amendment No. 73—that is page 23, line 39, leave out subsection (5)—and Amendment No. 75—that is page 24, line 10, leave out subsection (6). The one leaves out subsection (5) and the other leaves out subsection (6). I can explain to your Lordships what they are. Subsection (5) says that the British Transport Commission shall not be allowed to acquire, in part or in whole, any road passenger company. Subsection (6) says that the Minister may compel the British Transport Commission to sell their holdings in their present road passenger companies so that they may at any time hold only a minority shareholding. I think I have correctly stated it.
LORD TEYNHAM: May my Amendment be taken at the same time? It is Amendment No. 74, page 24, line 10, and it deals with exactly the same subject.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I point out that my Amendment is a little different? We got into confusion yesterday afternoon when trying to do a similar thing. I should not like the noble Lord to add all my figures with his. It would be better if we dealt with these Amendments in the way I have suggested, if noble Lords agree. As I say, one subsection prohibits the Commission from any further acquisition of road passenger transport, in whole or in part, and the other subsection, subsection (6), says that the Minister may compel the Commission to dispose of all their assets in road passenger transport except that which will leave them with a minority shareholding.
My first point is this. The Commission now are launched upon this field of competition; why do you prevent their expanding as any other company can expand in industry? When you were dealing with road haulage, you did not say that the Road Haulage Executive or those companies that were formed under Clause 3 of this Bill in respect of the carriage of goods for hire or reward could not expand, amalgamate or purchase other companies. But, when you come to road passenger transport, you say that they must not. The second part of my case is this. You say that the Minister "may." To dispose of the argument as to the difference in meaning between

1405
"may" and "shall." the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, this afternoon said that he always thought that "may" in a Bill really ended up by being "shall." The Minister may say that the Government say only that he may do it. It is in the Bill and he can do it. I think that is a fundamental mistake in this Bill. It denies to the railways and the British Transport Commission such elasticity as will enable them to achieve economic working by at any time substituting road for rail transport.
In my contention it is useless to argue that this Bill says that the British Transport Commission may provide road transport, and that it may provide road passenger transport. It is no good the Government saying that they do not take away the right of any of the British Transport Commission's minority holding companies to put on road services in place of rail. You might just as well say that the British Transport Commission may pave the floors of their buses with gold. If you relinquish the majority shareholding in any company, how can you dictate policy in regard to the working of the company? I am going to anticipate what the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, is going to say, and demonstrate where he fell into error before. He said that a licensing authority had the power to say to a bus company that if they were not prepared to run services on an unprofitable route, they would withhold a licence to run on a profitable route. There is nothing in the Statute which says that.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I disgree with the noble Lord.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Marquess will have an opportunity of speaking afterwards. The licensing authority may use all their powers of persuasion, but what can they do if the company refuses to operate? How can anybody say to a private enterprise company that they must run at a loss? If in the future we are going to get down to the economics of transport and the economic running of the railways, this is one of the biggest problems the Government will have to face.
There is no better illustration of this than Scotland. I am going to take Scotland as my example because, when I was at the Ministry of Transport, I made a tour of Scotland, just to look at their
1406
transport problems, and I was staggered. To provide a transport system in some of the Western Highlands and to the Islands on the West Coast of Scotland is a gigantic and terrifying job for anybody without enormous resources. To give one example, it is necessary to provide transport in the interests of social welfare for people living in the Islands off the West Coast of Scotland. At present that is provided by a very well run company named MacBrayne's, in which, by the way, the British Transport Commission have a 50 per cent. shareholding. The company have an arrangement with Her Majesty's Government whereby they run these routes to the Islands, some of which are profitable and some of which must always be run at a loss. Some of their bus services run to delightful places like Ardrishaig—I must apologise if my pronunciation is not quite right because it is a desperate step for me, an Englishman, to enter into Scottish affairs, but I feel I must do so because Scotland provides such an excellent example.
In 1951 the Government subsidised MacBrayne's to the extent of £ 240,000 and in 1952 to the extent of £ 360,000—an increase of 50 per cent.—to cover their losses on running these unremunerative routes in the Western Islands and the Highlands of Scotland. I will not go into detail as to how this mathematical calculation is arrived at, but it is achieved by the Ministry on a very fair basis so as to allow Messrs. MacBrayne's a certain profit ratio. But the fact remains that £ 360,000 per year is involved. I do not know what private enterprise company would operate to such a disadvantage, and I have yet to see an enactment that would force it, or attempt to force it, upon a private limited company which is responsible to private shareholders. In 1951 the bus services in Scotland wholly owned by the British Transport Commission carried 775 million passengers. They travelled 168 million vehicle miles, of which 80 million vehicle miles, or 50 per cent., were totally unremunerative. That is a staggering figure. What private enterprise company, other than a combine as big as the British Transport Commission, which has the fat routes of the East to make up for the thin routes of the West, would carry on such an undertaking? To run an economic service in Scotland, practically the whole of your passenger

1407
transport has to be in the shape of one amalgamation. Which are you going to have—a public or a private amalgamation? That is the only answer to this problem.
Since 1948 fifty-eight branch railway services have been discontinued in Scotland. That involves 450 route miles of track and a saving of £ 250,000. In substitution for those discontinued services we have road passenger services, practically all of which are running at a loss, but not as big a loss as was experienced by the railway. Inevitably, however, that transport must be run at a loss. I could argue in the same way in regard to Wales, Cornwall or Northumberland, but Scotland presents a staggering example, and I have personal experience of it. If you take away the control of the British Transport Commission, via shareholdings and the dictation of policy, and if you sell all its holdings, as the Minister may, and leave it with a minority shareholding, how are you going to ensure that the people living in the remoter parts of Scotland will have an adequate transport service? This is a social problem. If you do not give those people such a service, you will find that they will herd themselves in the large cities of this country and add to our social problem. People will not live in remote parts without having the amenities of the town as near to them as they can get them. And transport is the biggest amenity.
I remember that when I was in Scotland I met a deputation on the quayside in Campbeltown who told me of the difficulties with which they had to contend. They told me how they had to make a long roundabout journey in order to get to Glasgow, and their only possible way of doing it was by motorbus or sea. That is my case against the provision in this Bill which says that the Minister may dictate the sale of all the holdings of the British Transport Commission in their motor services. As I said earlier, the figures are forty big companies and £73 million. And he may compel them to sell the whole lot, leaving them with only a minority shareholding. To whom is he going to sell them? Is he going to sell them to the noble Lord opposite; to the British Electric Traction undertaking? Is he going to sell them in the open market? Is he going to dictate who
1408
is to buy them? We find that British Electric Traction have seventeen companies and 11,000 vehicles. They are the biggest of the other combines in this country. The British Transport Commission have a 33 per cent. to 55 per cent. shareholding in most if not all of these companies. I speak here subject to correction. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, will put me right if I am wrong, but perhaps he will not mind doing so after I have sat down. There is not one representative of the British taxpayer among those in control, although the British taxpayer's money is in this to the tune of 33 per cent. to 55 per cent. of the capital. There is no representation.
I ask the Government to consider this. I know it is a permissive thing, but permissive things in Bills become compulsory things in Acts of Parliament. I do it because I really believe this is not a monopoly, although we have had talk of monopolies. The approximate number of road passenger vehicles operated in this country at the present time is 81,000. I am now leaving out London which has 10,000. In the Provinces and Scotland and Wales there are 71,000. The Commission run 14,300, British Electric Traction 11,000, the municipalities 20,000, small operators with more than five vehicles 18,000, and operators with fewer than five vehicles, 8,000. That is the make up of this country's road passenger transport. So the Transport Commission is not a monopoly. It has only 14,000 vehicles in the Provinces—to be exact 14,300 vehicles—against a total of 71,000, which, of course, includes municipal buses. I think I have said enough. That is my case on both of these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 39, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
9.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Lord Chairman is allowing these two Amendments to be discussed together. Of course the position as regards Amendment 74 will be reserved. It will be dealt with as a separate matter, and I shall ask leave to reply separately after it has been moved. So I will now confine myself to the general—I will not call them wrecking Amendments, but obliterating Amendments, by which the noble Lord seeks to

1409
obliterate comprehensively subsection (5) and subsection (6). It is reasonable that these two propositions should be put together because they do hang together. I shall unquestionably ask the Committee to reject these propositions, because if they were accepted they would be entirely inconsistent with the whole spirit of the Bill; indeed, I think I may say inconsistent with one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. We do not like monopolies; the noble Lord does.
We, equally, are quite prepared—indeed, ready and anxious—that the Transport Commission should have its interest in road undertakings. In appropriate cases it may well be a majority interest. But we have also to remember that we believe these road passenger undertakings should be run in such a way as to make them a success as road passenger undertakings. We also recognise, not prejudging the cases, that there has been a good deal of complaint and suspicion in Scotland. The noble Lord said that everything was perfect in Scotland. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, and the people he brought to see me when I was visiting Scotland, and it did not seem to me that there is such universal satisfaction in Scotland with the status quo as is suggested.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not say there was.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then I do not understand just what the noble Lord was arguing. I thought he said what a marvellous job the Transport Commission were doing in Scotland.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not say anything of the kind.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If they are doing a marvellous job, then everyone in Scotland should be happy.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Viscount forgive me interrupting? All the way through this Committee stage, he has been prone to misquote and exaggerate what noble Lords have said. What I said was that the terrible difficulties facing transport in Scotland at the present time called for a large group so that the thin could go in with the fat.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I see then that the idea is that if a thing is difficult you must have something very large to
1410
tackle it. But sometimes most difficult things are not done by the largest animals. They are done by smaller animals quite well.
I take first the Amendment relating to subsection (6). We say that where there is a controlling interest, the Minister shall not be forced to make the Commission dispose of it, but that he may do so. There might be cases where it was appropriate that the Transport Commission should own 100 per cent. and operate the undertaking. But already, if the Minister is satisfied, he will not compel them to sell. If, on the other hand, he finds that a majority interest is being used in order really to stifle a service and to make the buses less successful, in order that the railways may be more successful, he will have the power to say: "Part with the controlling interest." He will use the power in each case to the best advantage. That seems to me to be a commonsense thing to do. To strike this power out of the Bill would be inconsistent with the objectives and the intention of the Bill. Subsection (5), which is the counterpart of subsection (6), says that without the consent of the Minister, the Commission are not to acquire a controlling interest in an undertaking. The two things must go together. It is perfectly logical. These two Amendments stand or fall together and I suggest that they fall. I agree with the noble Lord that we should take all possible steps to see that buses are operated in the interests of the public to make them a successful undertaking, and that is about the only thing upon which I do agree with him. I suggest that these Amendments fall.
LORD LUCAS OF CRILWORTH: May I ask whether I am wrong in my interpretation of subsection (5) (b)? Am I wrong in interpreting this subsection as a direction that the Commission are no longer to hold a controlling interest, directly or indirectly? That is what I gathered.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If the noble Lord will read the first part of subsection (5) (b) he will see these words:
"except with the consent of the Minister, the Commission shall not acquire"—
that means acquire some new undertaking. That was why I took the case of subsection (6) first, because that is the position which they occupy at present, I and the discretion of the Minister would

1411
require them to divest themselves of control. Subsection (5) is the counterpart which says that without the consent of the Minister they shall not acquire control of a new undertaking.
LORD MATHERS: The noble Viscount has made a speech which maybe looked upon as plausible, but taking the general purport of the clause as a whole I am certain that it does not meet the views of those of us who are apprehensive about the use which may be made of this clause. At the end of subsection (6) there is a proviso which says:
"Provided that the securities required to be disposed of shall not be more than is necessary to divest the Commission of control of the first-mentioned body corporate."
The clear object of this clause is to enable the Minister to bolster up the private enterprises he seeks to establish.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I gather the noble Lord does not like that proviso; am I right?
LORD MATHERS: I did not say that. I said that the proviso clearly shows the purpose of the clause is to deprive the Commission of the controlling interests they have at present or prevent them acquiring any in future.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Before the noble Lord takes the proviso further. I think he should know that it was put in at the request of the Opposition in another place.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hope my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting. The reason for that was that the original clause divested the Commission of every single share.
LORD MATHERS: It is a refinement of the cruelty that is perpetrated by this Bill. The noble Viscount said that the Amendments seek to obliterate the clause. The purpose of this Bill is to obliterate the services that are rendered by the Commission at the present time. Notwithstanding the plausibility of the noble Viscount's reply to my noble friend, I do not find he has answered the main charge levelled against these clauses and against the whole intention of the Bill. There is a real need in Scotland for the operation of large transport undertakings. The danger of the Bill, and of these clauses
1412
in particular, is that they will take transport out of the hands of those who at the present time are able to run unremunerative services because they also have control of services which are fully remunerative. Putting it bluntly, the present arrangement allows the fat to fry the lean. Under the arrangements in the Bill to dispose of transport units the likelihood—one might say the certainty—is, that only the profitable services will be bought up and continued in operation, whereas the need is to have unremunerative services run deliberately as unremunerative services in order to serve the public interest. The danger of these clauses to the public interest is that they will hamper and hinder the development and continuance of the work and life of those in the remote districts of Scotland. The Western Highlands and Islands have been mentioned. Only last week a protest came from my own part of Scotland, the Border country, where there is need for more transport services than exist at the present time. This Bill is looked upon as a menace to these services. That is why, on Second Reading, I said that I fear the consequences of this Bill; and here we are now dealing with clauses that show clearly the menace this Bill is to the welfare of Scotland. I regret to say that in replying to my noble friend the noble Lord did not remove any of my apprehensions.
LORD WINSTER: When the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was speaking about transport services in the West of Scotland which are essential but unremunerative, I was reminded of another service, the postal service, which has to run essential but unremunerative services. I can think of one place in the county of Cumberland, eight miles from the nearest telegraph office, where, at the time when a telegram could be sent anywhere for sixpence, a vehicle had to be provided to do the sixteen-mile journey in order to deliver a sixpenny telegram. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, now in charge of the Post Office, is not here, but if he were I am sure he would agree that the Post Office has to carry out these unremunerative services because postal communications are essential. I am sure he would be the first to agree that he could not carry on the Post Office if it were exposed to private competition which could cream off the remunerative

1413
services and perform none of the essential but unremunerative ones.
Let me take the case of the nationalised railways. They also perform essential but unremunerative services, as I mentioned on Second Reading. The railways perform services which during the war we found were absolutely essential to the safety and preservation of the country, services which they would have to perform again if war came once more; but they are exposed to competition from both coastal shipping and road haulage. I hope that the coastal shipping and railways will be able to come to an agreement so that they do not compete severely with each other. But the fact remains that the nationally essential railways are exposed to competition from shipping and road haulage. It seems to me that we have three essential national services; such road communications as we have just heard about, the railways and the Post Office. But all three of those essential services seem to operate under completely different conditions: although they are national, they do not receive the same treatment from the Government. I feel it is about time that where essential but unremunerative services have to be performed, the treatment of the industries carrying them on should be put on an equal footing.
9.51 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think in quoting MacBrayne's service the noble Lord went very far astray. MacBrayne's, to my personal knowledge, have carried on a service to the Western Islands for many years. I remember as a small boy the smell of the sheep which were crowded on to the decks of one of their ships as I came back from one of the Western Islands. Whether they were 50 per cent. or 51 per cent. owned by the railway company, they have always been paid a subsidy for carrying on that essential service. I do not see that this clause will affect that position one way or the other.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I never said it would.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Then I do not appreciate the relevance of the noble Lord bringing in the point on this Amendment. Perhaps I misunderstood him. Really it is a joy to follow these debates, whether in this House or reading
1414
Hansard afterwards, because every day we discuss this Bill the Party opposite is gaining for itself a new name: the Party of monopolists and in favour of monopoly; the Party that is not going to allow the consumers to have the benefit of a competitive service. That is the name the Party opposite are getting through every Amendment noble Lords move and every speech they make on this Bill. It is refreshing to hear the unanimity with which, on this Bill, they are supporting monopoly, when on other occasions one finds them rather holding up their hands in horror when they think there is a monopoly. They introduced the Monopolies Bill, but when there is a monopoly of their own creation, they are just like a mother losing a little child. They are really earning for themselves the title of "The Monopoly Party", and if they go on like this, that is, indeed, what they will be called.
LORD GREENHILL:The views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, indicate a real depth of ignorance as to what is meant by "monopoly". There is not one kind of monopoly. When you have a public monopoly you have the ownership by all of the particular service; when you have a private monopoly, then you have in a few hands the ownership at the expense of the rest of the population. That distinction should always be borne in mind.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? The other day I happened to be travelling in a train which did not allow a man and his wife in my compartment to alight. The man pulled the communication cord, and we stopped about 100 yards down the line. There was a great protest from the guard and everybody when they found the cord hanging in our carriage. The man said: "After all, this railway is mine. Cannot I do what I like with it?" It is not ours; it was not his; it does not belong to any of us. It just shows the very remote control, and how we do not own the thing at all.
LORD GREENHILL: That story really illustrates the difference between private and public monopoly. The fellow who pulled the cord thought it was his railway. It was not his railway; it belonged to all of us, and he had no right to take

1415
advantage of the rest of the passengers. That is the difference between private monopoly and public monopoly.
However, I want to direct my attention to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I think it is true to say that his description of the purpose of the Government in subsections (5) and (6) was stated quite frankly. Put into words which my noble friends on this side of the Committee would use, it may be summed up in this way: that the Government are anxious to destroy the value of the railways, which are publicly owned, and to enhance the value of the passenger transport industry, which they hope will become privately owned; and they do so by saying, in the first place, that the Commission shall divest themselves of any majority holdings in passenger road transport, and will be prevented from purchasing control in other undertakings in the road passenger industry. That is perfectly frank. What we are saying, however, is this—and I have in mind Scotland, particularly—that you have in Scotland a form of transport which could not possibly be run by the railways alone, or by the passenger road vehicles alone, and certainly not by the steamers. In order to have a transport system which will at least supply the needs of the Scottish people, you are bound to have it so integrated that railway, Toad and sea are combined in order to give the maximum service to those who need it. It has already been said by my noble friend Lord Lucas that, even to-day, in trying to provide that need, the Government are paying to MacBrayne's the tremendous sum of £340,000 a year: and even that is not sufficient to provide a wholly satisfactory service. What the Government appear to want to do is to make it even more difficult to do so. We naturally object to that.
It may be said that in Scotland a Consultative Committee is set up, which, unlike other consultative committees, will have direct access to the Minister; and if they go to the Minister with a demand for improvements in the service, it is unlikely that the Minister will withhold that better service. That may be. What I am asking is: Why should we go through this lengthy procedure, when we already have a system which works, if not wholly satisfactory at least sufficiently
1416
satisfactorily in providing the service which so far has been enjoyed, and which one hopes in the future may be increased to satisfy an even larger section of the people there. Do not put us in Scotland into a position in which we shall be worse off than we are to-day. I wish the noble Viscount would look into this matter with a view to seeing that Scotland does not suffer at the expense of the rest of the country.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I will gladly respond in a sentence or two to the request of the noble Lord. Lord Green hill. Certainly the interests of Scotland will be looked after. That is why particular arrangements are made for Scotland—indeed they are not made for any other reason. Scotland certainly cannot complain that it is not being looked after. The noble Lord has, I am sure unintentionally, completely misunderstood the purpose of the Government and myself, and the provisions of this Bill. Let me explain in a few sentences what they are. We do not intend to suppress the railways. On the contrary, we intend that the railways shall have the fullest power to develop. That is why, in clauses which we shall reach presently, we are giving them facilities and discretion which they have never before enjoyed. Secondly, we do not wish to suppress their bus services. On the contrary, we wish them to take part in omnibus undertakings. But, as I said on Second Reading, we not only wish, but are determined, that where they do take part in bus undertakings, they shall be run if possible at a profit and in the best interests of the public whom they serve, and shall not be suppressed in the interests of the railways.
In the same way, we intend that they shall have a fair say in road transport, again not to suppress road services in the interests of the railways but so that road transport may be efficient and make a profit. I do not for a moment expect the noble Lord to like that way of dealing with this nationalised industry, because the noble Lord believes in the loss motive and I believe in the profit motive—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Which noble Lord does the noble Viscount mean "believes in the loss motive"? I wish the noble Viscount

1417
would not draw quite so much on his imagination.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Arising out of the noble Viscount's statement on the loss and profit motive, may I ask him whether, under subsection (6), there is anything to prevent the Minister—I realise that the Minister may or may not direct the sale of securities—from directing the Commission to divest itself of its controlling shares in the profitable undertakings and directing it to retain its shares in the unprofitable undertakings?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, common sense.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Can the noble Viscount give us any guarantee that in a Conservative Minister that quality will be present?
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord has given up all hope of being in Government again!
LORD ARCHIBALD: I said "Conservative Minister."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I shall respond to the noble Viscount's
10.10 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I should like to ask the Deputy Leader of the House a question about the continuation of business to-night. When the matter was
undertaking. He says he does not want to prolong this debate.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Oh!
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is what the noble Viscount said. I will resume my seat, because I am quite willing to sit here all night. Does the noble Earl say that I may not wind up?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: So long as I have the permission of the noble Earl, I will carry on. I am very dissatisfied with the noble Viscount's reply. He obviously did not know the Bill when he said that of course the majority shareholdings could be retained. They cannot. The Commission must divest themselves, so that their holding is only a minority one. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall have to ask your Lordships to express in the Division Lobby your opinion on this matter.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: —Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Stansgate, V.

Chorley, L.

Mathers, L.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Archibald, L.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Winster, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rothes, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Selkirk, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Exeter, M.

Freyberg, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Gifford, L.

Falmouth, V.

Hampton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Furness, V.

Hawke, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Goschen, V.

Leconfield, L

Buckinghamshire, E.

Ridley, V.

Llewellin, L.

De La Warr, E.

Swinton, V.

Palmer, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Remnant, L.

Grey, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lindsay, E.

Bilsland, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Munster, E.

Carrington, L.

Savile, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Cherwell, L.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Waleran, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

put to me this morning, one of two sources suggested that we might go to Clause 22 or ten o'clock, whichever was the earlier. As it is now ten minutes past ten, I think that in view of the great amount of time we have put in to-day it would be advisable to adjourn. I think the noble Viscount should take

1419
into consideration that we have not had the whole of to-day to devote to this business. There were fairly lengthy discussions before we reached the Committee stage to-day, and I suggest that in view of the time put in and the time we have before us to-morrow, it would be advisable in the interests of everybody that we should adjourn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am absolutely amazed at that suggestion. I cannot believe the noble Lord has made it of his own volition. If he was here at the beginning of the Business he will know that the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition said that he was prepared to make an arrangement. He said, "Of course I am not going back on the arrangements we made and I will accept whatever is reasonable. I suggest we go on to Clause 22"—knowing, of course, that immediately following those remarks he was going to speak on the Royal Titles Bill. So we arranged to finish Clause 22. And then he said, "If there is not very much in it, we might take Clause 23". I said that that seemed a very good arrangement and that going on to Clause 22 would enable us to devote the whole time to the railway clauses and dispose of them to-day. There was not much, I thought, in Clause 23, and I said that probably it would be agreeable to the House to take Clause 23 and see how we got on. The Leader of the Opposition's last words were, "That is an excellent arrangement: possibly Clause 23, but at any rate Clause 22 is the 'target for to-night'." Clause 22 is the "target for to-night" and we propose to reach it.
LORD SHEPHERD: I hope the noble Viscount is not denying what I said: that alternatives were mentioned to me this morning. Are we now to go back on that arrangement? Apart from the business of this Bill we occupied a good deal of time on other subjects. I suggest that we ought not to continue the debate to-night in the somewhat frivolous mood, if I may say so, which I observed as I came in. I think it would be better all round if we adjourned until to-morrow.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should really like to know who is leading the Opposition. I understood the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was the Leader of the
1420
Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition was present at the beginning of Business, which is the time when Business arrangements are made. I know nothing about something which was said—I do not know by whom—to the noble Lord. Certainly no arrangement was made with him. I understand from the Chief Whip on this side that not even a tentative overture was made. The time at which Business is settled in the House is at the beginning of Business. The Leader of the Opposition made a proposition to me. I accepted it on behalf of the Government, and we will stick to that proposal.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In the absence of my noble and learned Leader, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. I happen to be leading on this Bill. Of course, if the Deputy Leader of the House wishes to go on we will certainly go on. My noble friend only made a suggestion—there is surely no harm in making suggestions—and the suggestion has not been received. Personally I am getting in form and enjoying myself.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to leave out subsection (6) and insert the following, new subsection:
"(6)—

(1) Without prejudice to any other power them enabling the Commission shall have power from time to time to sell or otherwise dispose of all or any securities which they may hold in any body corporate mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) (a) hereof on such terms as the Commission may think fit.

(2) Where—

(a) the Commission directly or indirectly control a body corporate which is carrying on or is about to carry on an undertaking the activities whereof consist wholly or mainly in the provision of passenger road transport services; and

(b) as a result of the Commission or any body corporate directly or indirectly controlled by the Commission disposing of any securities the Commission would no longer control the first-mentioned body corporate, whether directly or indirectly,

then the Minister shall, as soon as may be and from time to time thereafter, review the position of each such first-mentioned body corporate and without prejudice to any other power of the Minister to give directions to the Commission, the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, direct the Commission to dispose, or, as the case may be, to cause the second-mentioned body corporate to dispose of those securities at such times and in such manner as may be specified in the direction, and it shall be the

1421
duty of the Commission to comply with that direction:

Provided that the securities required to be disposed of shall not be more than is necessary to divest the Commission of control of the first-mentioned body corporate."

The noble Lord said: The first part of this Amendment is to ensure that the Commission shall in fact have power from time to time to dispose of securities which they may hold in respect of the road transport companies. I am not sure that the Bill as drawn gives the Commission the necessary power. I will deal with the second part of the Amendment and say that if healthy competition is to be achieved, it is essential that the management of road and rail transport should be divorced, and that the management of road transport should be in the hands of people who really understand it. I think that that view has been endorsed by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton.
I do not mean that all the shares held by the Commission in bus companies should be sold; but provided the Commission relinquish managerial control in the provincial omnibus companies they should retain substantial shareholdings corresponding to those of the former railway companies. I sincerely hope that in due course the Minister will, in fact, exercise his powers under this clause and direct the Commission to dispose of their control of provincial bus and coach undertakings—in many of which, in some areas, they have a complete control. On the other hand, I do not wish to disturb the efficient partnership between the Commission and private enterprise which already exists on quite a substantial scale; in fact I should like to see it increased.
The second part of the Amendment puts on the Minister a duty to review the position of each of these passenger road transport companies as soon as he may be in a position to do so. We want to make sure that the question of the Commission's control of these bus companies is not forgotten, and we want the Minister to review the position as soon as he can. I wish again to emphasise that when a bus company is under the same ownership as a railway company, healthy competition is unlikely to materialise. In fact I should say it is monopoly in its worst form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved,
Page 24, line 10, leave out subsection (6) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not wish to misunderstand the noble Lord who has just spoken. He said he does not want to divest the Commission of managerial control. But he does want, I understand, to divest them of financial control.
LORD TEYNHAM: The opposite. What I am anxious to secure is that the Minister shall direct the Commission to get rid of a sufficient number of securities, so that the managerial control will in fact pass.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Do I understand that the noble Lord wants to stand by the Bill as it is at the present time, and that the Commission should divest themselves of securities except those that will give, them a minority shareholding? Is that what he wants?
LORD TEYNHAM: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thought so. But the noble Lord does not want the managerial control to pass.
LORD TEYNHAM: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: You want both to pass?
LORD TEYNHAM: Yes, I want both to pass.
LORD HAWKE: I think Lord Lucas is under some misapprehension about the contents of the Bill. Just before he called for a Division, I think he was led to believe that this Bill tells the Minister that he must divest himself of these securities. In fact, it is "may" divest himself.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not under a misapprehension.
LORD TEYNHAM: You are repeating it again.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation.
10.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON:I have been invited on this Amendment to say where the Government stand. I think I can do that quite clearly. Under Clause 16, subsection (6), we take permission to direct

1423
the Commission to divest themselves of majority shareholdings in their companies. I think it is fair to the Commission to say that the situation which has developed since the 1947 Act was passed has really developed in a way which the framers of the Act did not envisage. When they passed it, their theory was that there would be a lot of road passenger transport schemes; but, whatever else may be said about it and whoever may support any part of that Act, there was not a single supporter anywhere in favour of these schemes. Everybody—local authorities. Socialists, Conservatives, private and public traders, co-operatives and everyone else—joined in opposing those schemes. Therefore they have been quite rightly wiped out. Where the Commission did develop its road passenger services was by voluntary acquisition. They acquired companies like Tilling's and S.M.T. They acquired very substantial interests. Indeed, they wholly own forty-two bus companies operating 14,000 vehicles, or 20 per cent. of all the buses in the country, excluding those of the London Transport Executive. The companies operate in all parts of the country, but in Scotland and East Anglia they have a practical monopoly of the road passenger services. So in these areas of Scotland and East Anglia, if you take together this monopoly of road passenger transport and the nationalised railways, it means that the Commission have a virtual monoply of all passenger services.
The whole question of road passenger operations and licensing under the 1930 Act is being considered by the Thesiger Committee. Their terms of reference are:
"In the light of present-day conditions"
—I stress those words—
"to inquire into the operation of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, relating to the licensing of public road passenger services and to make recommendations."
Those words "in the light of present day conditions" give full power to the Committee under their terms of reference to look at the whole monopoly situation. Indeed, it is certainly time that the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which has attained its majority, should be reviewed; and in the light of the findings of the Thesiger Committee and of the whole monopoly position of the Commission, the Minister may
1424
come to the conclusion that the Commission's dominance is unhealthy. Therefore the power is taken in Clause 16 (6) to discontinue the majority shareholdings. The House has just decided that that is right. I am not really sure that this Amendment goes any further than the words which are in the Bill. It introduces words about the Minister, that
"if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest…"
I would strongly advise my noble friend not to press for those words. They are very natural words to suggest. But we have been up against these words on a number of occasions. They look very nice public-spirited and convenient words, but one finds in fact that they are words of limitation. Whereas we want to consider a particular situation—for instance, we want to consider East Anglia or two or three companies in East Anglia—if you insert the words "in the public interest," somebody will say: "You cannot decide the particular position in East Anglia. You have to take the public position in England as a whole." Therefore, whatever else we do, I strongly advise the noble Lord not to ask to insert those words.
Then the Amendment says: "The Minister shall review the position." Of course, the Minister will do that in any case, but I should rather not have that provision in. I will tell the noble Lord why. If you put in that provision to review, the conception of it is "once and for all review"—or, at any rate, it is a review that takes place and then, like a quinquennial valuation, after five years you may start another. That is not really what you want the Minister to do here. You want the Minister to have the position continuously under review and not to make necessarily a general review. Take some particular instance such as the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, brought forward, of a case in Scotland. He said: "This does not affect the general aspect. I feel that the service is inadequate—or the railway is really diverting my road passengers through its bus company on to the railways." You want the Minister to have a look at those cases, which I think do arise, then to exercise his powers. Quite frankly, we want it. I want to see these powers used to carry out what has been emphasised several times to-night is the policy of the Government—and that is

1425
not to prevent the railways from having bus services, but to ensure that where they do have bus services or have an interest in bus services, those will be run efficiently as bus services and run to make a profit as bus services.
I can easily conceive that the Minister may say: "I do not mind your having a 100 per cent. or an 80 per cent. interest in this concern, provided I am satisfied that you are running it in that way." If the management is a very good bus-minded management, there may be no reason for getting rid of the majority control. In another case there may be a good reason for getting rid of it. Therefore, I suggest that we have a general power to the Minister to cause the Commission to divest itself of the majority shareholding, and a general duty, not to review from time to time, but to keep the whole situation always under review. I certainly do not think that we shall want the words "in the public interest." We are so near in intention, and not only in intention but in words, that I very much doubt whether we can improve on the words in the Bill as they stand.
LORD MATHERS: Before the noble Viscount sits down, I would point out that in his speech he used the words "in the public interest" and "for profit" as though they were synonymous terms.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. I did not mean to at all.
LORD MATHERS: Yes, you did say it. I am within the recollection of the Committee. The noble Viscount certainly used those terms as synonyms, as if they meant the same thing.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not say anything of the sort.
LORD MATHERS: Then let me put the question to the noble Viscount. Is not there, in certain circumstances, a public interest to be served without a profit?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord has completely misunderstood. I never connected public interest with profit or with loss. What I said about public interest was that they were unwise words to put in because the courts might construe them as words of limitation, in the sense that if the Minister has to do something because it is in the public interest,
1426
he cannot consider the particular interest of the people in a particular locality. He may be held to have the power only if he thinks that it benefits the whole country. I never connected public interest with profit at all. What I did say, in quite a different connection, was that we were determined that where the Transport Commission had bus companies, they should be run as going concerns and if possible make a profit.
LORD MATHERS: I am sorry that I did not interrupt the noble Viscount when he used those words. I am quite clear in my recollection, and I should then have convicted him out of his own mouth.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I should like to support the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Teynham, and to say a few words on the general position between road and rail. I think the general situation was slightly distorted, in that nearly all noble Lords have spoken about the situation in Scotland. As a Scotsman myself, I should be the last not to wish to see the right thing done in Scotland. But Scotland is not the only place where road and rail transport are under joint ownership, nor, for that matter, is East Anglia. There are other parts, such as the South West, North Wales, North Riding and the counties of Durham and Cumberland. I suggest, as I ventured to suggest a short while ago, that where you get dual ownership of road and rail you cannot get healthy and reasonable competition; and if you do not get that, you do not get busmen giving of their best service to the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on one or two occasions, mentioned some figures, particularly in connection with the Transport Commission and with B.E.T. I should like to give five figures which I think are quite important and which will help to present the picture in perspective—these are round figures. Apart from the London Transport Executive, who own about 10,500 vehicles, the British Transport Commission wholly own 14,391 vehicles. The British Transport Commission and B.E.T. have a partnership whereby each own an equal share, and in many of the companies the outside public also hold shares, and there is equal representation

1427
on the board. The number of vehicles thus owned in partnership is 10,370. The number of vehicles wholly owned by B.E.T. is 1,150, and the balance of some 40,000 is held by municipalities and other operators, mainly vehicle and stage coach operators. So no less than one-fifth of the available road passenger transport is under dual ownership.
It is that situation which made many of us hope that when this Bill came along some action would be taken. We were very disappointed to see only a permissive clause. On Second Reading we were told that no action would be taken until the Thesiger Committee had reported. I am sure the Thesiger Committee Report will be immensely useful, but I venture to suggest that the terms of reference are very narrow—I think they are confined to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and I am doubtful whether all the points that should be taken into consideration in these difficult questions can be amply covered by such terms of reference. I hope they will be. Some definite action and policy is required, and some application of that policy is necessary to see that the best use is made of the services available. If the noble Viscount cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, I would ask him to give an assurance that healthy and proper competition between road and rail ought to come about, that buses should be managed by busmen, that the position will be carefully and continuously examined, and that action will be taken whenever it is really desirable to do so.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, quite rightly said that one object of this Bill was to enable the Minister to reduce the Transport Commission holdings in operating bus companies to minority holdings. He then went on to ask how they could control with only a minority holding. I think he now realises that the whole object of the scheme is that they should relinquish control and management. In general terms, the fact is that we dislike the idea of monopoly, either private or public. A great deal has been said on that subject. The noble Lord gave us an insight into what is in the back of his mind, and what in my humble view was always in the back of the mind of the Government which produced the 1947 Act. I cannot
1428
quote his actual words, and I am sure he will forgive me for any inaccuracies, but in regard to an earlier Amendment I think the tenor of his remarks was: How can you expect the railways to compete with the buses unless the buses charge more for their short runs? That was the tenor of his argument. He mentioned two places. I cannot remember his exact words but if he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow I think he will agree with me that his suggestion was that bus fares would have to go up in order to give the railways a reasonable chance to compete.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH:Would the noble Marquess allow me to make this correction? I think what I said was exactly the reverse. What I said was that there would be disequilibrium in the railways—that railway fares would have to be brought down in order to compete with the buses, and that they would have to be pushed very high where there was no competition. That is what I said.
10.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I apologise to the noble Lord for having misunderstood him. But I am a little nervous, all the same, that where there is dual control of the bus companies and the railways there must be a monopoly, and whether it is called a public or private monopoly makes no difference. A further point I should like to make arose in connection with another Amendment, but I think it is germane to this. Several noble Lords have mentioned the question of running services at a loss, especially in Scotland. I can say, without fear of contradiction, that all over the country private enterprise is running hundreds and hundreds of losing services. I know one company has 75 per cent. of its routes running on that basis. Where a reasonable profit can be made on running a public service on that basis, I suggest there is not very much to fear in the suggestion that the losing routes will not be covered perfectly adequately in a partnership between a private enterprise company on the one hand and the Commission on the other.
May I address one remark to the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader? I remember that when we were discussing road haulage he was very sympathetic towards the idea of a partnership of shareholdings.

1429
I should like to see something done with regard to the road passenger transport shares which are at the moment held entirely by the Transport Commission. It would be an easy operation to perform because the concerns are already in the form of companies, and the transfer of the certificates would not be very difficult. It is because of that, and because of the principle rather than actual facts on the spot, that I should like to see that done as early as possible. I hope the noble Viscount will not consider me too impetuous in making that remark. Therefore I support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I make an appeal to the Deputy Leader of the House? We have been sitting here for eight hours and ten minutes, and most of the time has been consumed in attempting to harmonise differences between noble Lords supporting the Government. There are still thirty-five Amendments in the names of supporters of the Government on the Marshalled List. Is it not possible for the Conservative Party to meet at the headquarters of the Imperial League, or wherever it is they meet, and get these differences settled, and not ask us to sit here hour after hour while differences are publicly exposed and not always harmonised?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Viscount need not sit here any longer than he wishes. It would be a very odd House of Lords in which Members in any quarter of the House were not entitled to make that contribution to the public debate and those constructive suggestions which they feel to he appropriate. There is no need for the noble Viscount to be in his place. If we were to go into a careful mathematical analysis—and I will have it made to-morrow—of the time consumed (and let me say at once that I am not complaining of it) by speakers on that side of the House and, speakers on this, I know on which side the larger proportion would come out.
I have been greatly interested in the two speeches which have just been delivered, and I think there is little between us on this matter. I should like to point out that while Lord Leathers said that he wanted to see the Report of the Thesiger Committee before he embarked on any large operational policy—I think that was the implication of what he said—there is nothing in this Bill which compels him to
1430
wait before he tells the Transport Commission to dispose of a majority holding. He could do it to-morrow if he wished. I am not speaking for myself—of course, that would be both an irrelevance and an impertinence in the case of a Bill like this, for which my Department is not responsible—but I think, after a great deal of talk with the Minister of Transport, that I speak his mind when I say that he would welcome this idea of partnership; that it would give a good interest to the railways, or the Transport Commission, and that they would make money and give good service. For my part, I do not think I can go further than that. I cannot go further than say what I think would be in his mind. There might be much healthier condition, much better service for the general travelling public, and more lucrative returns for the Transport Commission if, instead of being 100 per cent. shareholders in a limited number of companies, they had a shareholding which was larger in the aggregate in a larger number of companies. I think the Minister would not be at all averse to seeing that happen.
LORD GIFFORD: One reason why I think this Amendment is desirable is that there is nothing in the 1947 Act enabling the Commission voluntarily to sell shares in a passenger road transport undertaking. I think the only provision in that Act is that they may dispose of shares that are no longer necessary to their normal business.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, for saying what he did and adducing those figures. They add up in the aggregate to precisely the same total as mine. His calculation was done on personal knowledge; I have to rely on figures published by the Ministry of Transport. In the aggregate, however, our figures come to about the same.
LORD TEYNHAM: I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is going to look at the words in subsection (1) of the Amendment, and see whether the Commission has in fact powers to dispose of securities. I understand his explanation of the words "in the public interest." I agree they should not have been in the Amendment at all, because of judicial cases on this matter. I wonder whether the noble Viscount would consider in the next stage inserting, instead

1431
of the word "review," the words "keep under continuous review." I should like him to think about that before the next stage of the Bill is reached. With those words I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Before the Amendment is withdrawn is not the Deputy Leader going to give any answer to the cogent arguments put forward by Lord Teynham for consideration at a later stage.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: He was assuming that I should do what was reasonable. I shall do what is reasonable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit subsection (6). The noble Lord said: The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton and I agreed that we should take the result of the Division on Amendment 73 as deciding the fate of this Amendment. So I will move this Amendment formally, and then perhaps its fate can be recorded.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We cannot do it that way. There is no means of doing such a thing. What can be done is that the Amendment can be put and negatived.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will move it and formally withdraw it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Move it and let it be negatived.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Very well then, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 10, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
10.48 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (8) after "any" to insert "person or." The noble Lord said: This again is an attempt to help Scotland a little, and England a little too. If I may have your Lordships' permission I will take this and the succeeding Amendment together. I am seeking that the Government shall widen the scope of the consultative committees. The consultative committees at the present time can make recommendations
1432
to the Minister relating only to the services rendered by the nationally owned transport undertakings. But that is not the whole problem. These consultative committees were set up under the Act of 1947, when there was a monopoly. The Government are dismantling that monopoly, but they have not thought fit to dismantle the machinery of the consultative committees. I think that the consultative committees can still serve a useful purpose. The Government, I think, are desirous of having as free competition as they possibly can, and I do not see why they want to perpetuate one jurisdiction for the nationalised operator and one jurisdiction for the private enterprise operator.
The noble Lord may say: "Well of course in Scotland they are to have another consultative committee." It is to be known as the Scottish Transport Council, but it is really only a grandiose consultative committee. It includes civil aviation and the like, but not representatives outside the publicly owned services. It is going to be an amalgamation of the representatives of publicly owned services and the Scottish Consultative Committee. The noble Earl may reply that the only reason for not bringing private enterprises within the scope of this provision is that we have no power of control; that if there is no jurisdiction over the private enterprise operators, it is not much use bringing them in. I do not hold that view. I think the Minister requires advice. If, as the Government hope, private enterprise transport is now to be the main field of transport in this country and the sphere of nationally owned transport declines, owing to the super-efficiency of private enterprise, it does not seem to me wholly adequate that the advice given to the Minister by the consultative committees should pertain only to a minority of transport undertakings. Even if he has no power, I think the committees should be able to advise the Minister upon transport matters in general. I suggest to the noble Earl—who I see is left with the powerful support of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture—that he could acquire power. The Government are doing a lot of farming in this Bill: perhaps that is why the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is here—he is going to advocate more ploughing!
That is one of the objections I had at the back of my mind when, in an earlier discussion, I spoke about revising the scope of the Road Traffic Act. Under that Act, the Minister can exercise power, via the licensing authorities, by making regulations which the Government may at some future date think advisable. The noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, told me that a licensing authority could direct a private enter I prise operator to run an unprofitable route. With respect to the noble Marquess, who I know has an intimate contact with this problem, I know they just cannot do it. What they can do is to carry out a subtle piece of blackmail. That is what is really boils down to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think the noble Lord should use the word "blackmail" in connection with the licensing authorities. That is a wrong expression to use.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I qualified it, but I withdraw it. I hope the noble Earl does not think I meant it as blackmail.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, but it would be a pity that it should go out in that way.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I withdraw it unreservedly and use the expression "a little persuasion". What the authority does is to say to an applicant for a licence, "Here we have a nice fat route, and here we have a thin one? Are you prepared to run the thin one, because, if not, we have another applicant here and if you will not, he might?" But a licensing authority has no statutory power to compel anybody to run a non-profitable route. I suggest in my Amendment that the consultative committees should have an advisory purview of the whole field of transport and I recommend it to the noble Earl as worthy of serious consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 36, after ("any") insert ("person or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
10.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We have wandered a little from the consultative committees into the licensing field. I should like to correct the noble Lord on one point. He said that the Scottish
1434
Transport Council was like a grandiose consultative committee. I do not think that is anything approximating to a true definition of a body which will consist of the heads of the transport organisations and whose powers will be the sum of the powers of its members. That is a very different body from a consultative committee. The noble Lord said the Minister requires advice. Why did he not arrange for that advice to be provided in 1947?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Is that any argument? Surely we are now confronted with the Government of all the talents. Is the only reason why the Government are not going to do it the fact that we did not do it six years ago. That seems to me to be a futile argument.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Then the noble Lord admits he was wrong in not doing that six years ago. The Bill extends the use of consultative committees over the whole sphere in which their recommendations can be given effect. Wherever the Minister is in a position to give directions, he can receive recommendations from the consultative committees, and on these he is able to act. It is interesting that that field was not taken up in the 1947 Act. I am sure that was because the noble Lord thought no importance was attached to this matter. The noble Lard thinks we are destroying something which existed before, but in fact we have given more strength in this sphere.
The noble Lord asked that we should also consider the functions of private firms not under the control or ownership of the Commission. In our opinion, little purpose would be served by bringing them within the scope of the consultative committees, because whatever recommendations were made there would be no way of giving effect to them. We are putting our faith in licensed competition. We think that will be more effective than recommendations from a consultative committee which there is no power to enforce. I say, with great respect, that our method is a far more effective way of providing a public service than that of having an innumerable number of bodies, all making recommendations to each other and hoping that somebody will accept those recommendations. I hope the noble Lord will.

1435
withdraw this Amendment. He will notice that there is another Amendment in the opposite direction a little later. For that reason, I do not think his proposal would be accepted very readily, or indeed, would serve a useful purpose.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It was only a generous gesture on my part to be helpful to the noble Earl. If he does not want my help, then I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved to leave out subsection (8). The noble Lord said: I suggest to your Lordships that the consultative committee procedure was really designed to fit into a scheme of fully nationalised transport under the machinery of the Transport Tribunal, and was never intended for road passenger transport still under the jurisdiction of the licensing authorities. If superimposed upon them, it will become a fifth wheel to the coach, and difficulties and anomalies may easily arise. For example, suppose the consultative committee suggests, through the proper channels, to the Minister that services should be reduced. If the Minister decides to instruct the Commission to reduce services, this might not meet with the approval of the licensing authorities, and we should have the Minister and the licensing authorities in conflict. I do not know, in those circumstances, who would win. Quite apart from that, up to the present the local authorities have constituted a kind of consultative committee, and the custom has worked very well, and I think it would be a mistake at this moment to include this provision here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, leave out subsection (8).—(The Earl of Rothes.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I agree that there is some substance in the point of my noble friend Lord Rothes, because it is possible that a recommendation from a consultative committee affecting a bus service might leave the Minister in the position that he has a recommendation, and his only way of implementing it might be to send a direction to the Commission. He is quite aware of that. The answer is that he would have to be careful in the type of instruction which was
1436
sent. It is in the Minister's mind, and he would merely indicate that he had had recommendations that certain services should be provided. I think it is improbable that a consultative committee would recommend that a service should be reduced; it is more likely that the recommendation would be that the service should be increased. The Minister would not send an instruction to a licensing authority that a licence should be given to the Commission. What he would say is that certain services should be provided in those cases.
The blunt answer is that this provision was not considered necessary under the 1947 Act, because it was intended eventually to nationalise almost the whole industry, when it would have been appropriate to do so, and because of the purchases made by the Transport Commission this did not seem necessary in those cases. But, as we know, we are still left with a big solidarity of ownership between road and rail. The principle we are acting on is licensed competition in these areas—that is, rather limited competition between road and rail, as such. We are therefore in this position: that in regard to the functions of the 1930 Act to provide a service as between competitors it is questionable how far it is thoroughly effective for its original purpose. It is for that reason that we think it desirable, at least for the time being, to extend the services of these consultative committees to bus companies controlled directly or indirectly by the British Transport Commission.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am rather impressed by the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, and also with the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I am not at all certain that the argument has not convinced me that it is better, if you cannot have these consultative committees with 100 per cent, jurisdiction, not to have them at all. I quite see the anomalies that might arise. If the noble Earl likes to press his Amendment to a Division, I will ask my noble friends to accompany me, and we will support him in this Amendment.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his kind offer, but I should not like to disturb him at this late hour. I would only say to my noble friend Lord Selkirk that I am rather disappointed at his reply. Would he,

1437
when he is thinking about this, bear two things in mind? The first is that the whole business has already been submitted to the Thesiger Committee. Surely, as these consultative committees were set up under the very Act to which the attention of the Thesiger Committee has been directed, we might have awaited their Report before extending the powers here. Secondly, I was rather interested to note that the noble Earl feels that the extension of the Minister's information is required for these services, because, I suppose, he cannot be very satisfied with them. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Trade harbours and port facilities
(2) The Commission shall not, after the passing of this Act, provide port facilities in any place unless either—

(a) they were, on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, providing port facilities in that place; or

(b) they had, on the said first day of July, power, otherwise than by reason only of section two of the Transport Act, 1947, to provide pert facilities in that place.

11.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN had given notice of two Amendments in subsection (2), the first being to leave out "either" and the second to add
"(c) in any other case the Minister so approves."
The noble Earl said: We now move on to another phase of this Bill, and I should explain straight away that the object of this Amendment is twofold: first of all, because this clause was never discussed at all in another place—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It was discussed on the Report stage.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I accept that. Secondly, I feel that some information is wanted on this clause. Like the Victorian parent, we should like to know what the intentions of noble Lords are towards this member of the family of the 1947 Act. It is a curious clause. It is curious in its omissions, because I notice that of the sections relating to trade harbours in the 1947 Act, three are repealed and one is left. That is one thing about which I think we should have an explanation: Why is the harbour
1438
of Holy head, which has a section to itself in the 1947 Act (Section 69) left, and the others repealed? What is the Government's plan for the future of these trade harbours? I would remind your Lordships that these sections in the 1947 Act applied to all the harbours, other than those used only by fishing boats and pleasure boats. The importance of ports to this country needs no emphasising. Everyone knows that they are in the most literal sense a vital part of our economy; everyone knows also that they are an essential part of the system of internal transport—they are the points of interchange between ocean shipping and the internal transport system of road, rail and water.
Like a good many other things in this country, they have grown up very haphazardly and they have always been known to be in a very unfit state of efficiency. Their ownership varies greatly: there were the railway-owned ports, ports owned by local authorities and by independent Boards. Trusts and Commissions, set up under a great variety of Acts of Parliament at various dates. Some were plainly controlled by sectional interests. Many were deficient in the financial resources needed to keep them in step with modern developments in cargo handling. Not by any means all the railway-owned ports, for instance, attained anything like the efficiency in the modern city of Southampton. Not only the financial resources but the physical resources of many of these harbour authorities were very deficient. The cargo-handling facilities ashore and on the quay, and the dredging, lighting and numerous other aspects were in no fit state to carry the traffic they were supposed to carry. Moreover, the composition of the various governing bodies was not by any means satisfactory. Indeed, it was very uneven, and in a good many cases the composition of these bodies had not kept pace with modern ideas of labour relations and representation of the workers on them.
Not having had any part in the preparation of the 1947 Act, I cannot say, but I assume that it was with those considerations in mind that the Government, in introducing that Act, regarded the ports as an integral part of the transport system and, therefore, included them in the sphere of responsibility of

1439
the British Transport Commission. Clauses 66 to 69 of the Act laid down the system by which these ports were to be integrated. The Transport Commission were charged with the duty of keeping them under review, with a view, when so directed by the Minister, to formulating a scheme for a harbour or group of harbours which would provide for all or any of the following matters—and there follows a long list, such as constituting the governing body, transferring the undertaking to it, grouping of adjacent harbours, assuring the representation on the boards of local interests and all sorts of interests engaged in the work of the harbour and using the harbour. The principles were also laid down. It was clearly laid down that all local interests were to be represented; that the seat of the administration was to be local; that there was to be no monopoly of the services in the harbour, and that anyone aggrieved by the scheme when it was ultimately executed would have an appeal to the Transport Tribunal. These provisions are not unlike the provisions of the present Bill before the House, so far as the railways Lire concerned, in that the Transport Commission is ordered to prepare a scheme to lay before the Minister. But in this case I venture to think that the instructions given to that body in the 1947 Act were a good deal better and clearer and there was a clear statement of policy, instead, as I said earlier to-day, what one might call almost a nebula of co-ordinating authorities.
What has happened since? Some of your Lordships may have seen the Transport Commission's reports, and also the report of the first reviews which they undertook in the years 1948 to 1950 of some of the harbours. The harbours that were examined were the harbours of the Firth of Forth, Dundee, the harbours of the North East Coast, the Port of London, Merseyside, Bristol and West Cumberland. In three cases the machinery went forward; the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive consulted local interests; there were long negotiations and, finally, draft schemes were prepared, referred again to the local interests and then put before the Minister, with objections. I understand that in the year 1951 three schemes were put
1440
before the Minister—one for the Tees, and the Hartlepools, in February; one for the Clyde, in October; and one for Aberdeen, in December. Whether any schemes have been submitted in the year 1952, I do not know.
There we have the position as the machinery of the 1947 Act has been working. It has been working steadily. The provisions of the Act seem to be fairly watertight in preventing any growth of monopoly and in ensuring that all concerned have a say in improving the efficiency of the ports. I do not think the Commission have shown any ambition at empire-building. I do not think they particularly want to add to the number of docks they control, because they took over all the railway-owned ports under the Act. They have been carrying out their duty under the Act and submitted their recommendations to the Minister. This Bill repeals two of the sections of the 1947 Act which gave this power to set up this machinery for keeping our sea ports under review. What, I wonder, is going to take its place? Her Majesty's Government are now dismantling the new structure for integrating the transport system as part of the economic life of this country. The props of all that structure are being knocked away, one by one. This is one of them, and I think we are entitled to hear from Her Majesty's Government what they propose to do about the ports. Are they going to abolish the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive? If so, what are they going to put in its place, and by what method are they going to ensure that the ports of this country are kept under review and modernised, and made capable of taking, their proper place in the life of the country? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 2, leave out ("either").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD WINSTER: I should like to say one word in support of the Amendment. Through my connection with a body which looks after the interests of the officers of the Merchant Navy I hear a good deal about matters which are covered by this clause and this Amendment; and I must tell your Lordships that I have heard the work of the Commission in this direction very highly spoken of, and a great deal of warm approval of their proposals for the future.

1441
On that account I am sorry to see the proposals in Clause 17—especially since anyone with any knowledge of the ports and harbours of this country knows what a great deal there is to be done in improving their facilities which, in all too many cases, sadly lag behind modern requirements. On that account I most warmly support this Amendment and its expressed hope that discretion may be left to the Minister to allow the Commission to continue this work. After all, it only proposes leaving it to his discretion. If the Minister does not think some useful purpose can be served by allowing the Commission to go on in certain directions he need not do so; but it seems to me gratuitous. in view of the good record of this Commission and the great satisfaction which their work has given, to deprive the Minister even of discretion to allow the Commission to go on with the work if he thinks a useful purpose could be served so doing.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can reassure the noble Lord who has just spoken by telling him that where the Commission are they will remain. There will be no alterations. What we are discussing here is whether they require more. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that they do not want more.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Earl must not misrepresent what I said. He knows as well as I do that the term "empire-building" is a colloquial term; they are carrying out their duty.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Earl said that they did not at the moment want to extend their port ownerships. Actually I think they are in agreement with others whom they might want to take over. The noble Earl mentioned the Tees, the Hartlepools, the Clyde and the Aberdeen schemes, and asked whether they are going ahead. I can only say that in the locality concerned those schemes proved to be unpopular. I suppose the likelihood is that they did not go ahead. The noble Earl gave us an extremely interesting speech on the importance of the ports to this country, and the system and basis on which they are run. He gave a complete picture of his view on the subject.
But we have a very limited aspect of the subject with which to deal. What stands before us to-day is whether the Government do or do not consider it desirable for the Commission to extend
1442
their ownership of ports, and I must state definitely that we do not. I can, however, say something which will please the noble Lords opposite who last night were very worried about the extent to which we were leaving matters to the Minister. Here we do not leave the question and decision to the Minister—very definitely we do not. The question of whether the ownership of ports by the Commission should or should not be extended we leave to Parliament. By not mentioning the Minister we leave the extension of this ownership of ports to the decision of Parliament. There will be private or Public Bill procedure and Parliament will either approve or not. I am quite sure I shall have the enthusiastic support of the Benches opposite on that point. For that reason I do not wish to accept the Amendment, and I do not believe Lord Lucan will desire to press it.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am sorry the noble Earl does not feel able to say any more about ports. I asked him how the Government would ensure that the ports of this country are kept continually under review, modernised, kept adequate and adapted to deal with changing conditions. Let us take one example from the visits paid by the Commission—the ports of the Firth of Forth, which need considerable thought about their future, because of the greatly changing face of industry in that area. The Lanarkshire mines, which were at one time the chief source of the coal supply, have largely been worked out and are being closed down, while new pits are being opened in Fife shire and in the Lothian coalfield. What is to happen to the ports in the Firth of Forth, which are gradually losing their trade, and what is to happen to the coal which the National Coal Board want to ship from the ports nearest to the newly-opened mines? Those are the sort of problems which must be faced. If we have half-a-dozen separate authorities, each controlling a small port, how can they possibly take the wide view which will he necessary in order to adapt a whole estuary to the new requirements? Is the noble Earl able to tell us what Her Majesty's Government propose to do?
EARL DE LA WARR: Either the work must be done by the Commission or we must rely on the whole procedure which

1443
existed before 1947 and under which this country has built up its port facilities—the procedure of relying as far as possible on local initiative, supplemented by assistance and encouragement from the centre, and the promotion of Private Bills for the development of their port facilities. That is what we come back to, and it has worked extremely well in the past—much more successfully than that which has occurred since 1947.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: We have now reached the ninth hour of consecutive sitting, and I want to ask those in charge of Business one or two questions. When the Deputy Leader of the House last spoke to me he gave me leave of absence, which, incidentally, was not in his function, for, under Standing Order XVIII, it is a matter given only by the House. Are we to understand that distinguished leaders on the Front Bench are reserved for Opposition Amendments and that the Deputy Leader of the House is to return for troubles which arise in his own ranks? If the Deputy Leader is not going to return, I should like to ask the advice of the present acting Leader of the House, Lord Selkirk, about what is the proper course to pursue. Elsewhere the usual course is to move, "That the Committee do report Progress and ask leave to sit again" until the Leader of the House is present.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am only saying that in another place, which shall be nameless, that is the course. I was asking the acting Leader of the House what is the proper thing for the members of this House to do when the appointed Deputy Leader, having "trimmed" me for complaining of the length of the sitting, then absents himself and shows no sign of returning.
EARL DE LA WARR: I know that we do not have many rules of Order in this House, but I am not quite sure what relevance those instructive remarks of the noble Viscount have to this Amendment—the question of providing port facilities.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My noble friend put some questions which the noble Earl was unable to answer, and I thought we should turn to a higher authority.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Amendments as to charges schemes.
(2) Every charges scheme shall, as respects the services and facilities to which it relates, comply with the following requirements, that is to say—

(a) it shall not provide for fixed charges or standard charges;

(b) it shall fix maximum charges except in cases where it appears not to be reasonably practicable or to be undesirable so to do;

(c) in cases in which no maximum charge is fixed it shall authorise the Commission to make such charges as may be reasonable and provide for any questions as to the reasonableness of any such charge being determined on the application either of the Commission or of the person liable to the charge by the Transport Tribunal, to the exclusion of any other court;

(d) it shall, save as aforesaid, and subject to the provisions of this Act, secure that the charges to be made are left to the Commission's discretion and that no conditions or limitations are imposed on that discretion;

(e) it shall secure that the Commission have to publish the maximum charges but do not have to publish any other charges; and

(f) the provision which it makes for through charges shall be such as may be appropriate having regard to the preceding paragraphs of this subsection;

and section seventy-seven of the Transport Act, 1947, shall, as respects charges, be limited accordingly.
11.30 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, in subsection (2), after "section seventy-seven of the Transport Act, 1947, shall," to insert:
"be amended and shall read, A Charges Scheme may revoke or amend any previous charges scheme subject only to the proviso that the Transport Tribunal may not entertain any application for confirmation of a new charges scheme if less than twelve months have elapsed since the coming into force of the scheme which the new scheme seeks to revoke or amend, and shall as respects charges, be limited accordingly."
The noble Lord said: There have recently been very protracted proceedings before the Transport Tribunal relative to the proposed increases in fares in the London area, and there was a considerable discussion as to whether the Commission were entitled to raise the fares again within a period of twelve months. The discussion arose on a section in the 1947 Act. It seems to me that the intention of the 1947 Act was that there should be a twelve months' interval. The discussion was whether the Commission

1445
were entitled to raise the fares in the London area twice within twelve months. There seems to be some inconsistency in the Act, because if the raising of the fares is classed as an alteration in the charges scheme, under Section 79 of the 1947 Act, it is specifically provided that the Tribunal should not entertain an application if less than twelve months have elapsed since the coming into force of the scheme.
On the other hand, if the raising of the fares were regarded as a new charges scheme under Section 77, there was no time limit. Reading these proceedings, it seemed to me that there was something of a quibble, because what was proposed was an alteration in the charges scheme, and the intention of the 1947 Act was that there should be a twelve months' interval between the raising of fares in that case.
There has been considerable feeling about this matter. No less a body than the L.C.C., and other bodies such as the London Passengers' Association, with many other objectors, fought the case before the Tribunal, and there was a strong feeling that there had been a good deal of unfairness to the London travelling public. The object of the Amendment is to consolidate what I think is the intention of the 1947 Act by introducing the twelve months' interval, whether the alteration in fares is classed as a new scheme or as an alteration in the charges scheme. By introducing this Amendment, no matter which way the alteration is classed—whether as a new scheme or as an alteration—it could not be brought forward more than once in twelve months. This is not a new idea, because it existed in the 1917 Act, and the Amendment insures that the spirit of the Act is carried out.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 19, after ("shall") insert the said words.—(Lord Gifford.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has raised what may be described as a very "hot" subject. He is perfectly correct in his presentation of the facts of the case—with this exception: the real point under Section 79 of the 1947 Act was to prevent repeated applications for changes in fares being made to the Tribunal by traders in other words, to some extent it was a protection for the Commission itself. Traders could make application to the Tribunal for
1446
various alterations in fares, and the limitation of twelve months was introduced to protect the Commission. Under the other Sections, 76–78, the changes could be introduced at any time. I feel that the noble Lord is not justified in saying that this is a quibble, because, with great respect, it is a matter which is being considered by the High Court.
LORD GIFFORD: What I said was that I felt that the intention of the Act was that there should be a twelve months' interval. It was the Commission who decided to say it was a new scheme and not an alteration; it was not a question of what the Tribunal said.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is precisely the case which went to the Court of Appeal, who decided that it was a new scheme. But this point is to some extent less important now, because we have the new Clause 21 in the Bill, which gives headroom and which means that some limited but immediate action can be taken. The headroom clause comes into operation only when a question of increased costs arises. It will not come into operation if the Commission are losing revenue because there has been a fall in traffic. Under this Bill we do not have fixed or standard charges; we merely have maximum charges. It is possible that at some time or another railway companies' charges may not be up to their maximum, in which case they will have a ready remedy in their own hands.
Finally, although we have this Clause 21, which is obviously in existence to meet an emergency, we must be careful not to drive the Commission into using it unnecessarily. In some senses the words proposed here would limit their ability to raise charges where it is necessary to do so, and they might be driven to use Clause 21 when they ought to prepare a complete new scheme to meet a new set of circumstances. I must tell the noble Lord that this is not the root of the trouble. It is no good not raising charges and pretending that the public are getting the benefit, because they are not. I think I can say that the substantial proportion of the accumulated deficit of the Transport Commission today is due to failure to raise charges quickly enough. While I have the greatest sympathy for the public who see charges rising, I must make that

1447
comment. Of course, centralised monopolies have not shown much tendency to keep their prices down. We hope very much that there will be a better tendency under this Bill to do so, but in any case it really is hiding one's head in the sand to pretend that, just by delaying a raising of charges, the public will gain anything. This matter is of importance, but I hope, in view of the other clauses with which I hope to deal, the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord does that, I should like to say one or two things. Even at this late hour, I think it is necessary to say that the noble Earl, if he will permit me to say so, has given one of the most lucid explanations of this present difficulty.
LORD HAWKE: Loose or lucid?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Lucid, clear, precise, short.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Pithy.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: "Lucid" does not mean "short."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What the noble Earl has said needed saying, because the whole trouble of the British Transport Commission, with reference to its deficit over these last two or three years, has been that the costs have piled up while the lawyers have argued. We see it happening to-day. On it can go; on it can go; on and on, objector after objector, playing the old, old game of getting nowhere fast; and in the end, as the noble Earl rightly said, the public who employ these people to argue have to pay.
I was interested in what the Controller of the British Transport Commission said the other day. This is what he said—I am quoting now from the Manchester Guardian:
"Sir Reginald referred to the argument put forward by many objectors that London travellers were paying more than their share. 'I would suggest that passengers up and down the United Kingdom, outside London, are generally in a position, when the circumstances are comparable with those of the Londoner, of paying their full whack. Outside London is standing on its own feet, taking the Commission as a whole just as we are asking London to stand on its own feet.' "
When the noble Lord wants this headroom clause cut down. I again say, as I
1448
have said many a time, that the British Transport Commission have in the past had to go to a Tribunal and then wait twelve months before they get a decision. The London County Council, when it raised its rate, did not have to go to any Tribunal at all, and raised the rate overnight. Look at 1951. When the British Transport Commission, losing £500,000 a month, went to the Transport Tribunal for approval of higher fares. When eventually, after twelve months, the Transport Tribunal did raise them, what happened? The Government stepped in and called a standstill. It is because of that standstill that the present application is before the Transport Tribunal. What did they say? Counsel for the London Passenger Transport Board said—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Order, Order!
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am quoting from a newspaper. I am perfectly in order. It is the Manchester Guardian. Counsel said:
"Among the causes of the present difficulties was the Government's intervention when increases were last proposed, which had cost £1,200,000."
The noble Earl is quite right. I am grateful to him for having said what he has and for explaining the position so precisely.
LORD GIFFORD: I also am grateful to the noble Earl for his very lucid explanation. I think he is right that in the end nothing can be gained by allowing a deficit to be built up. I would only add that in private enterprise, when an undertaking with which one is concerned is making a loss, one does two things: one tries to avoid, perhaps, first of all, putting up one's prices until one has first seen whether any economies can be made in the undertaking. I think that that procedure could be used more freely by the London Transport Executive, which is the particular part of the London Transport Commission which we have been discussing. I am sure that there are many ways in which that body is being extravagantly run at present. In addition to raising fares, I should like to see a real effort made to effect economies. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) At the end of section eighty-one of the Transport Act, 1947 (which gives a locus standi to certain local authorities as regards charges schemes) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
In this section "local authority" includes the council of any non-county borough, metropolitan borough or urban district having in any case a population of not less than fifty thousand according to the last census for the time being."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to widen the definition in the Transport Act of 1947 of the words "local authority" so far as charges schemes are concerned. Under the 1947 Act, only a county council, a county borough or the Common Council of the City of London have a locus before the Transport Tribunal. This means that the metropolitan boroughs, non-county boroughs and urban district councils have no right of representation. It is true that it can be claimed that because every county council has a locus, every citizen is covered by the present definition. I suggest, however, that county councils are too remote to be able to represent adequately their local problems. I recognise that it might not be practicable to extend the rights of making representations to every local authority which would include rural district councils. In order to obtain some limitations on the number of authorities having the right to appear before the Tribunal, this Amendment proposes that only those non-county boroughs, metropolitan boroughs and urban district councils having populations of 50,000 or more, should be given the right of making representations on charges schemes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is an Amendment which will be of great interest to those immediately concerned in the non-county boroughs, metropolitan boroughs and urban districts which can be brought into the Bill. We have examined carefully the proposals which the noble Lord has made and we think it right that areas representative, as these are, of at least 50,000 people should have the right of making representations to the
1450
Tribunal. Accordingly, I have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to add to the clause:
"(7) It is hereby declared that the discretion which, under paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of this section, is to be secured to the Commission includes a discretion to exceed any charge continued, with or without adjustment, by an order made under subsection (2) of section thirty-four of the Railways Act, 1921, but where the Commission make a charge exceeding any charge so continued, any person who would have been entitled to the benefit of the charge so continued may complain to the Transport Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall make such order as to the charges to beamed by the Commission in the cases to which the charges so continued would have applied as may appear to the Tribunal to be reasonable."
The noble Lord said: Many years ago, when the railway companies were constructing new lines or absorbing smaller railway companies or lines belonging to private traders, certain traders became entitled to specially low railway charges. As the Bill is drafted, the Commission might take away from the traders concerned, the whole benefit, of these special charges which they have enjoyed for a large number of years. These charges were embodied in agreements made between the traders and the railway companies, or in special statutory provisions contained in the Private Acts of the railway companies, and were, in fact, the result of valuable consideration given by the traders, such as the withdrawal of petitions against Private railway Bills which were, perhaps, seeking powers to construct new lines. In other cases, traders entered into agreements with the railway companies in order to agree on such matters as the use of land.
Under the Railways Act, 1921, a new system of railway charges was brought into existence, involving charges at a considerably higher level than had been in force before the First World War. I would point out that Section 34 of that Act provided that, where it was proved to the satisfaction of the Railway Rates Tribunal that any charge in operation on the fourth day of August, 1914, and fixed under any subsisting agreement was originally so fixed for valuable
1451
consideration, the Tribunal should, by order, continue the charge, subject to such adjustment, if any, as the Tribunal might think fit and equitable. I understand that in making such adjustment the Tribunal had to provide that the relative position between persons entitled to the charge and other persons, as existing on the fourth day of August, 1914, should not be prejudiced or improved. I believe that something like twenty such orders were made. I am not suggesting that the special charges should be continued for all time with the strict relativity which was adopted under the 1921 Act. It may well be that, in most cases, reasonable agreements can be made between the Commission and the traders concerned. But I do maintain that it is only fair that if agreement cannot be reached the traders should have the right to obtain a determination of the Transport Tribunal in the matter. Such a right is provided by the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Under Clause 13 (2) (d) the Commission have complete discretion below the maximum. But there are a large number of odd things arising from the original railways being taken over, such as land being taken in one way or another, and we think it is right that these special arrangements should be extinguished as fully as possible. At the same time there may well be people who have built up businesses on the strength of such agreements, and we feel that those people who are prejudiced by this development should have the right to go to the Tribunal. I think the arrangement suggested in my noble friend's Amendment is right and I am very glad to accept it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think one word should be said upon this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, started off by saying something upon which I was going to get to my feet and again congratulate him. It is a pity that we have to discuss this clause at such a late hour, when noble Lords are weary after a very heavy day's work, but this is one clause in the Bill upon which we wholeheartedly congratulate the Government. At least they have removed these things: but they are going to be against
1452
a terrific pressure. The noble Lord will doubtless forgive me for saying that he was slightly prompted by his Front Bench in this matter, who in turn, no doubt, have been prompted by outside representations. But there will be this continuing nibbling against this freedom. You cannot sweep away enactments and anachronisms over 100 years old without treading on the toes of some vested interest. If Her Majesty's Government do not have the strength of their convictions in this matter, if they do not withstand this nibbling to get back the advantages of the past, their position will be weakened. I would beg the noble Lord on this occasion—I do not know the circumstances of this particular case, so I am not going to criticise him—to stand fast in this matter, because we on this side of the House should like to press the Government to release even the shackles that they have left on and at last give the railways an honest chance, and not just a pseudo-chance, of being competitive. I am very sorry to see this sign of weakness. It may be only a small sign. I hope that the noble Earl will take into consideration the whole of the business element in this country which is behind the Government in their efforts to give the railways at least the chance that they have never had in these last two generations.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord realises the price of liberty, but if he really wanted to be strong why did he not do this in 1947? I know that this subject is very painful to him. I am glad it hurts, and it will go on hurting the noble Lord. But perhaps I may make this point. Old rights will come before this quasi-judicial Tribunal. Will the Tribunal have any respect for an old right which to-day is completely unjustified? I submit that it is very improbable that they will—in other words, this will be a small shackle, except in regard to cases where there is evidence of some clear justification for a right claimed by the party making the application.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think it is a pity that when anybody in your Lordships' House rises to make what is a non-Party and constructive suggestion he should have to suffer a political taunt and gibe. If the noble Earl wants to descend to the hustings I will accommodate him. But when one wants to rise above that one often receives a gibe
LORD TEYNHAM: I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, realises, in his heart, that this is a fair and reasonable Amendment, and I am obliged to the noble Earl leading for Her Majesty's Government for accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Exclusion of certain enactments]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move this Amendment. I am assured that it is purely a drafting Amendment, because there is a definition of undue preference in another part of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 31, leave out from ("prohibits") to ("and") in line 32 and insert ("undue preference").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Protection of traders against unreasonable or unfair treatment as to charges.
20.—(1) Any person desiring to send merchandise by railway in circumstances in which that merchandise cannot reasonably he carried by any other means of transport who is of opinion that the charge which he is or will be required to pay in respect of the carriage by railway of that merchandise in those circumstances is unreasonable or unfair may complain to the Transport Tribunal.
11.58 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to add to subsection (1):
"but no charge shall be deemed to be unfair or unreasonable, if it does not exceed the prescribed maximum charge as determined by section eighteen of this Act."
The noble Lord said: We have just passed a few clauses the purport of which is understood to be to wipe out all that vast volume of Statute and case law which has been accumulating since 1854, and to remove the shackles which have been imposed on the railways. Personally I think we shall find in practice that the alleged removal of there shackles has not been as complete or as wide as is claimed by noble Lords opposite. There will be licensed competition—a phrase beloved by the noble Earl—there will be licensed war to the knife; the survival of the slickest. That is what is in front of us. I hope I shall get the same success with my Amendment as did the
1454
noble Lord opposite. First, it pre-supposes that the Tribunal has thoroughly examined all the circumstances and has agreed to maximum charges, taking into account the factor that the industry may be tied to rail and cannot conveniently send by an alternative route. It is a typical instance of the fact that the shackles of days gone by were imposed on the railways, not in the interests of the railways, but in the interests of the trading and travelling public. Let the Tribunal fix maxima charges. It is presumed that those charges will be fair and reasonable—that is a presumption which can be made on the noble Earl's own argument. But quite a number of rates will be below these maxima.
The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent the Transport Commission and other people from being dragged before this Tribunal if any trader feels aggrieved because an exceptional rate has been brought up either to the prescribed maximaor to somewhere below the prescribed maxima. Obviously, if the railways wanted something above the maxima, there would be a case to go to the Tribunal. If we are going to have this licensed competition, if we are going to have this freedom in the interests of competition and of trade and industry, then let us have it; do not let us, in one breath, say that we are going to have the freedom, and in another direction keep the shackles on. It is not unreasonable to say to traders with private sidings or things of that kind: "All right, go to the Tribunal, state your case and get the maxima charges fixed", but surely the railways, when that procedure has been gone through, will be entitled to say, "Taking into account the ordinary competitive conditions, the rate now charged is too low, bearing in mind how the rates have been built up in the past, and we are entitled to something more than, say, 50 per cent. of the maximum charge." Far those reasons I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD HAWKE: I hope the noble Earl will not accept this Amendment. I am not sure whether I understand the argument of the noble Lord opposite. I understand the clause as amended to mean that where the maximum charge

1455
has been fixed by the Tribunal, the railway company in respect of goods which cannot reasonably be carried by any other means may give to one trader a particular rate, and, under the noble Lord's Amendment, another trader cannot complain and go to the Tribunal and request that the rate be extended to him. I am all in favour of keeping a proper balance between competition and the interests of the railways, but I could not agree to this Amendment; it goes too far. The key point in this is the passage in the subsection:
"in circumstances in which that merchandise cannot reasonably be carried by any other means of transport."
LORD BURDEN: That will have been taken into account by the Tribunal in fixing the maxima. All we are saying is that if the railways wish to raise the rates above what might be the existing exceptional rates, that action is not a reason for taking them to the Tribunal.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have had considerable difficulty in understanding or in following the noble Lord's argument. I appreciate what he said about equality of charges, exceptional rates and so on. But we have confined the protection of traders to one narrow point, and that is, as the noble Lord has said, when people are tied to the railway. What I find difficult about this Amendment is to know how anyone can exceed the existing maximum charge, because it would be illegal. The noble Lord suggests that we should simply be confined to the illegal cases. There is one case only in which a charge exceeding a maximum charge determined by the Tribunal can legally be charged. That is in the case of a special charge agreed between the Commission and trader. That is a matter which is confined to a limited sphere. The reference to that will be found at the top of page28. With that exception, maxima charges will not arise. I do not know whether the noble Lord intends it, but by this Amendment he would remove the whole effect of Clause 20 as a protection in the limited sphere in which it is intended. That, I am advised, would be the effect of this clause if the Amendment were inserted. It would take away the whole effect of Clause 20 in that connection. If the noble Lord does not want to do that,
1456
then I ask him to withdraw the Amendment, and if he likes we will have a discussion about it afterwards.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his gesture. This is a rather difficult matter. I agree that the intention is to protect those traffics that are tied. My noble friend rightly asks what is an unreasonable charge. Surely to ask to have a definition of an unreasonable charge is not an extravagant request. I agree with the noble Earl that this is a very complicated matter. I do not agree with his arguments up to the present, but I may do so, if and when I am persuaded that this Amendment makes nugatory what is sought to be done by Clause 20. I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Burden, in the circumstances, will not wish to press the Amendment and will be happy to withdraw it. Perhaps we can have consultations upon this point, and if the noble Earl can convince us that he is right, I am sure we shall not proceed further with this point.
LORD BURDEN: In view of the offer of the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Special procedure for temporary authorisation of increased charges
(5) Where the Transport Tribunal make an order under subsection (2) of this section or the Commission publish a notice under subsection (1) of this section, the Commission shall, as soon as may be thereafter. apply to the Tribunal under section seventy-nine of the Transport Act, 1947, for the alteration of all or any of the charges schemes in force, and the proviso to subsection (1) of the said section seventy-nine (which prevents the Transport Tribunal from entertaining applications under that section unless certain conditions are complied with) shall not apply to any application made in pursuance of paragraph (b) of this subsection.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We now come to the "headroom" clause, and there are two procedures in this, one affecting passengers and the other affecting freights. I think it is right that I should take this Amendment along with Amendment 88. That merely states that when a rise is made in the freight charges under Clause 21 (2) that will

1457
terminate when the decision of the Tribunal is eventually made at a later date. This is really a piece of mechanics, and I do not think it makes any difference to the sense of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 41, after ("shall"), insert ("until such date as may be fixed under subsection (6) of this section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 12, leave out from ("from") to ("the") in line 13 and insert ("passenger transport services provided for the purposes of so much of their undertaking as is at the passing of this Act being carried on through").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
12.10 a.m
LORD FAIRFAX of CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX of CAMERON moved, in subsection (5) to leave out "as soon as may be thereafter" and insert "within one month or such longer period as the Minister may allow".
The noble Lord said: My Amendment tightens up the time limit within which the Commission must apply to the Transport Tribunal for confirmation of the charge increases that are made, following the allowing of an application by the Tribunal in private. As it stands, the subsection provides that they must apply to the Transport Tribunal for confirmation "as soon as may be thereafter". That seems to me too loose a way to leave it. It means that the Commission, if they were inclined to do so, need not apply to the Tribunal for confirmation for a year or so after the rise has taken place. I would remind your Lordships that the first hearing by the Tribunal of the Commission's case for an increase in charges takes place in private and the public know nothing about it. Therefore, from the point of view of public interest, it is important that the public hearing should take place as soon as possible. Under my Amendment the Commission would have to apply to the Tribunal for confirmation within one month, although in special circumstances, at the discretion of the Minister, they might have a longer period. But it is for the Minister to decide whether a longer period should be
1458
granted and how long that period should be, and I think that is the right way to leave it. I feel that my Amendment generally safeguards the public. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 27, leave out ("as soon as may be thereafter") and insert ("within one month or such longer period as the Minister may allow").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We propose to accept this Amendment. We feel that the words in the Bill are too vague and that some speeding up of the temporary procedure is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, put down an Amendment for three months but we think that is too long. There should be a certain amount of pressure. The difficulty about the three months is that the Commission might have a hurried examination of the whole matter without going into it as thoroughly as possible in order to get it done before the end of the three months' period. We think that one month, with the possibility of extension, is the best way of dealing with this. I hope it will be agreeable to your Lordships.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry the noble Lard has accepted this amendment. It is another "nibble." I should have thought that if the Commission were dilatory in making their application, the Tribunal would say they were not going to allow the application, because they had allowed too long a period to elapse before making it. However, there is the safeguard that the Minister can allow a longer period, and as the Minister has been putting all the widening and freedom into the Bill, on this occasion I am prepared to trust him and shall not oppose the Amendment.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I thank the noble Earl for accepting my Amendment.
LORD GIFFORD: I also would thank the noble Earl for accepting this Amendment, against which my name appeared, and also for his remarks about Amendment 89, which, in view of the circumstances, I shall not move. I should like to say to the noble Lord opposite that this is not a "nibble." It is a safeguard for the general public which it is reasonable to insert. I cannot understand why

1459
the noble Lord should take such a pernickety attitude about it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 34, leave out ("paragraph (b) of").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This also is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 37, leave out ("paragraph (b) of subsection (4)") and insert ("subsection (5)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 40, at end add ("or, as the case may be. of the relevant notice under subsection (1) of this section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.18 a.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved to add to subsection (6):
"The Commission shall not apply to the Transport Tribunal for temporary increases in fares under this section more than once in any twelve months."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of my Amendment is to prevent the Commission from applying to the Transport Tribunal more than once in any one year for temporary increases in fares. I feel that one application a year should be sufficient, and this would protect the public from undue and burdensome increases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Gifford.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is true, as the noble Lord said, that as the Bill is drafted, it appears that two temporary advances in fares could be made in succession. On the other hand, that can be done only when the conditions in subsection (1) (a) are fulfilled—that is to say.
"that there has been or will be an increase in their costs which will, unless met quickly by an increase in their charges, seriously affect their financial position;"
1460
That situation must be established, otherwise the Commission would be acting outside their powers. If the Commission abused the powers specifically laid down, clearly the Transport Tribunal would not listen to them. I think that that is probably adequate provision. If the Commission are going mad, there are a number of other things they may do besides that. This matter has to be determined eventually by the Tribunal, and we have to assume that, it would be reasonably done. Theoretically, it may be undesirable that there should be the possibility of two or three temporary increases, and if the noble Lord wishes, we will look into this point to see whether that contingency can be avoided. I hope, however, that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment now.
LORD GIFFORD: I am grateful to the noble Earl for promising to look into this Amendment in an endeavour to avoid, as he said, two or three temporary increases in the twelve months. With that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to congratulate the noble Lord. As the noble Earl has said, this again is something which I think could be left to the discretion of the Commission. One of the great troubles we have had in the past is that the Commission have been unable to move as quickly as their suppliers can. Their suppliers can put up their costs millions of pounds over-night. They do not have to go to a tribunal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might announce an increase in the bank rate or increase the petrol tax, and up would go the costs, by millions of pounds. Do you want the same position built up as exists to-day? I would beg noble Lords to be realistic in this matter. I am quite prepared to speak on the side of any noble Lord who wants to safeguard the position of the public. But it is essential to safeguard the position of these people who have not the freedom to increase their charges that private industry has. Private industry can put up its costs; its wages can go up, and it can put up the price of its products over-night. The Transport Commission have to go through this procedure to do it. The Transport Tribunal have acted very well and I believe have

1461
the confidence of most people. If the Transport Commission applied for anything unreasonable, they would be neglecting everything they have built up in the past—a real sense of responsibility. If they are not worthy of that trust, there is the Tribunal to say "No." Cannot we leave it at that?
LORD MATHERS: No doubt the noble Earl seeks to be accommodating at the end of the day by giving a pleasing answer to the mover of the Amendment, but I can promise him that he will not find complete unanimity in this Committee if he gives way too rapidly to an appeal of this kind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move this
1462
Amendment, which is purely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 43, leave out ("under paragraph (b) of subsection (4)") and insert ("in pursuance of subsection 5").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
House resumed.

NEWBURY CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past twelve o'clock midnight